Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br /> <br />Chair Klausing asked for physical hardship description (non-conforming lot size, <br />pre-existing non-conforming structure, vegetation, slope, and east side utility <br />easement). <br /> <br />Tom Holloway explained the contractor plans to do current work. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if the new porch would be the same dimensions yes). <br /> <br />Chair Klausing closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to <br />recommend, with findings (non-conforming lot size, pre-existing non-conforming <br />structure, vegetation, slope, and east side utility easement), approval ofthe <br />proposed variance, subject to the provision of a survey of the parcel indicating all <br />property line, easements, and structures as follows: <br /> <br />A. A 2.1 foot (west) side yard setback; <br />B. Lot width variance of 52 feet at the shoreland <br />C. A Shoreland setback of 42 feet. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />