01-03-1977 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. • iota COMUt raters need above, ,teahed hereto and 0- MOM r It, O Harbors ant, Q Shore ; s, b i i o Crossing ,:. i,.� •: t t, r •N • W • .. ` )do • do • • lilt Itoae- - - Pork 1 fisted ►elver led riom w± 1 • '�►,a� 0"UT8S OF A REGULAR 44E ING HELD FEBRUARY 7 , 1972 Paso 3 • � )rftith moved, Elliott seconded that after PUBLIC HE ARIH • isteni t � . nR o all the testimony he was o f the(Continued)-o inion the , it p camp would cause no excessive traffic , no decrease in property value, and except for the two contiguous property. owners, noise would be no factor. He felt ;,- Lo the permit should be allowed for one year � to be renewed thereafter and that o le ga 1 '`. Interpretation of 34.023 be obtained from the Village Attorney. notion, Ayes (3) - . .,Mays (4). Gasch Kullber Poisson an Searles Nay, ' g• . d Councilman McCarthy suggested from the floor r that the Planning Commission members and , the Village Council and interested adjacent ropert Y owners meet at the site next laturda morning to view the roblems involved .,and looK at the matter object vely. 10 Poisson moved, Searles seconded, that such i a meeting should be held Saturday. February 11, 1972 at 10:00 A. I.I. Notio n Ayes (7) Nays (0). Charles Carl represented himself P in a VARIANCE variance on lot size and width on Lot 8, Skarp 4 Lind ui s t , Fernh it 1. The lot in question i on i , q s o X 190 and the zoning requirements are one i acre and 1401 width. ' Ths ma half -section • `` p showing the density ..'�•' , of the area was studied by members. r Discussion was now held on the matter of single separate ownership',. Searles explained to members thtat this does not refer to arsons owning the P g property but to the property itself- - thus , if the property had been standing alone and not been adjacent . .to another property p operty having the same ownership, It would be in single separate ownership". Mir. Carl was asked that iadjacent P f one o f the ad j acen t 04 ty lots were available at the came purchase PrIce as Lot 8, he would buy it. He said he Pmould not have the means t o do s o. ' I •` yerse Moved, Elliott seconded that if •' Carl could prove the property was in -� P P Y j a • '�'� �- o"!,'• '•�' quIae separate ownership a s required e uired by clipa1 Ordinance 31.200' approval {.t.bou)d be recommended. mmended. Motion, Ayes (6) Nays C1) . Herfurth Nay. ' ,Aobert Birkeland represented, himself in an e a lagoon on his CONDITIONAL USE ^!^uiT •ppl ication to dredge g g s property Robert Birkeland at North th Shore Drive and 11i 1 dhurs t Trail., tieRob. • stated the lagoon was presently about 2 wi ldhurs t Trail .� . p ydeep r and he wished to dredge out 416 cu. yds. to keel the lagoon usable for his boat. The dreDings would be only used as a top dre s si n � � r over the clay fill placed on the promises at • (Continued) L9 P • •i -- � , � fir'' � • � . the t"• a W"ld be filling i Searles 4 not empot Tn wa is fill Hoe 12 S. Searles ■ recommend Of the dr .. • aot to be the actua Ares (7) • wr . Larne; division 1 a new plat Attorney I Mould be i 0 Searles ok on the grc get around Rich was such as th logality a Poisson ch division r street to as shown d a" is the be a d i s t a: of the pro; of 351e Poisson no, �lat as rei res (7) - Poisson no •eating be Respectful] Mike Schell Secretary