Laserfiche WebLink
BOA 9/28/89 MINUTES <br /> Page 5 <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Appeal was originally held pending further information regarding earth <br /> disturbing activity along the waters edge - applicant has since withdrawn that <br /> portion from consideration. <br /> 2) . Work is needed to ensure proper drainage after new construction. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . The project as planned, will not result in substantial detriment to <br /> navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic <br /> life, or safe and healthful conditions. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #1868. Wiegand - Dunn <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to withdraw action of 9/7/89 regarding this appeal. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> Harvey/Rendall to deny requested appeal from setback from normal high <br /> watermark sideyard and number of residences on lot. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Request originally held to allow applicants time to explore several <br /> alternatives to variances. <br /> 2) . Applicant has failed to notify this Board for further consideration. <br /> 3) . Applicant wishes to replace dilapidated guest cottage. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #1870. Raufman - Dunn <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to grant variance, with condition, from setback to normal <br /> high watermark to permit deck addition to residence under construction. <br /> CONDITION: <br /> 1) . Deck not to extend nearer to normal high watermark than 4 feet from <br /> residence. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Encroachment is necessary to allow emergency access to residence. <br /> 2) . 4 Foot deck/walkway is minimum for this use. <br /> 3) . Similar variance on adjoining lot. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br />