|
i r�r fl+! { '� r3 r,,P •: {'xrv{° '1 '' a l r ;1,4: •;:,`,,^W-4',,,,7 .o...?;-i,
<br /> L. ,gid ,
<br /> d 1 I it'll
<br /> rr' .: ' ` '�>i?i,va?�i 1,," r�k Alii.k jx '`:',A t.tt.. '� , ,4,44 yN 1!°�' .,2\44,4,r4,1„, `,7 >f;I'" -,Y s. -t
<br /> ,' ;!.♦' -:ala - ,
<br /> w t',
<br /> JS
<br /> kY
<br /> '
<br /> are combined; and the board finds that a hardship exists within the meaning of code ,-:
<br /> F.
<br /> 1.07 even if the two sites are considered as one. ',i'
<br /> The owners of the Revier and Amundson Sites have agreed to combine their
<br /> ' dock use areas and use their combined shoreline for a single common dock facility of
<br /> sufficient size to allow each to store one watercraft.
<br /> The board finds that the use profosed by the applicant and the owner of the '
<br /> '` ' Amundson Site is reasonable. Given 41 feet of shoreline, it is reasonable to expect a
<br /> �'• •' '' 1
<br /> r j, t to be able to store two boats along a straight dock, 90 feet in length, as proposed by
<br /> ;I '! the applicant. '
<br /> � ' r t ', i
<br /> thh ,
<br /> • 1+i i first
<br /> The board finds that it would he unreasonable to require conformance to the
<br /> , 4` r '{ {i {
<br /> } , ordinance given the converging lot lines which create a dock use area which is not
<br /> P •
<br /> r sufficiently large, even by combining the two parcels, for reasonable dockage or
<br /> e
<br /> boat storage.
<br /> The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances which
<br /> are unique to the property. It is not created by a desire of the applicant, but rather
<br /> •
<br /> ' ' results from the combination of the facts that the dock use area is defined under the
<br /> , LMCD code by reference to setbacks from lot lines extended into the lake and thatthe lot line extensions in this case converge as they enter the lake, resulting in a }
<br /> dock use area which is unreasonably small for 41 feet of shoreline. •
<br /> Y
<br /> The owner of the Runkle property has objected to the granting of a variance Ia
<br /> • on the ground, among others, that the hardship is created by the applicant. Mr.
<br /> Runkle asserts that the applicant acquired his property after the LMCD code was in
<br /> effect and therefore the hardship is self created. The board finds that the hardship
<br /> ; ",
<br /> is not self created in any sense that would preclude the board from granting a
<br /> ,
<br /> variance in this case, as more fully explained in the attached memorandum which is
<br /> hereby made a part of this order.
<br /> k
<br /> J 1
<br /> M
<br /> jl ' . ,*'•
<br /> �Jy'??,`}L- C1163201 1.
<br /> ''}aA LR110-4 2 „z
<br /> ;''Ig-rt ..� -1 - 11
<br /> I;i o{of , >x.
<br /> �T.� t ag.F9o. '*' �p rhnrl wr ay J...arJ ''
<br /> '" "r,.,' ry��7�,�1.ai y���,' ,,,ttP;yt•u f� KYC Y,' 't4 r�� 1� y{L /r 4&�' ..:, ''bC1 t),'i''' ,' r ,''' r ',. . �i,
<br /> iivy i�•���,JJfr�s `';�5s�.,y� t r 3�' � ��.-� i�.cz �t� y rNa� 1{ dry ,Ir', <a f 3� ',.,''I''.• r , , t _ > _ ,\a f .•.
<br /> f75. N .l' t.- F•9'' 14,•'s` . 1'..rl'...� Vete..V� •5N 0%, �'{ A„r h� ail S - , ?VF ..e 7 '`..,...`;',',i, i s;', . �i'' a Jlp Y *
<br />
|