Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MINUTES 4/22/99 <br /> PAGE 3 <br /> #3022. Appeal by Kevin&Cindy Lee for a variance from required side&rearyards as provided <br /> by Sections 10.07(7)and(8)and 10.16(5)to permit structural repair of existing residence at 99 <br /> Oakwood Avenue being Lot#31,Block 3,Highwood Estates 3rd Addition-Section 36,Town of <br /> Albion. <br /> IN FAVOR: K. Lee OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board. <br /> KLOPP/ROSS to hold request in abeyance,not beyond June Hearing,to allow applicant to obtain <br /> (2)additional independent itemized estimates and a letter of concurrence from the Town of Albion <br /> Building Inspector. Motion Carried 4-0. <br /> APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS HEARING: <br /> #3018. Kinder-Dunn-3/25/99 <br /> APPEAR: E. Kinder <br /> ROSSIKLOPP to grant a variance of 31±feet from required setback to normal high watermark to <br /> permit second story addition and porch roof alteration to existing residence as proposed. <br /> Finding of Fact: <br /> 1). Addition/alteration will not change existing footprint nor encroach any nearer to normal high <br /> watermark. <br /> 2). Residence has already had 2 previous variances for setback to normal high watermark <br /> (Variance#1388-8/85 and Variance#395 - 10/75). <br /> 3). Original residence constructed in 1910 and has had numerous additions. <br /> 4). Structural alteration is to change leaking flat roof to pitched. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried-4-0. <br /> #2845. Colson-Dunn-6/26/97 P.H. <br /> LONGIKLOPP to deny requested variance of 64 square feet from maximum allowable area of <br /> accessory building to allow storage shed on a vacant lot. <br /> Finding of Fact; <br /> 1). Applicant has located a"yard barn"on vacant property he owns across the road from the <br /> residence. <br /> 2). Applicant has no buildable area on lot that has residence on it. <br /> 3). Residence has no basement and garage is full. <br /> 4). Proposed Ordinance Amendment to remove necessity of variance failed to materialize. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried-4-0. <br /> Recehed <br /> p��COVNr�- <br /> MAY 6 IN <br /> �CLER`� <br />