Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1541 <br />June 11» 1990 <br />Page 2 <br />Discussion <br />Because the original house was not placed as near the north <br />lot line as had been approved, the ° <br />encroach within the 20* setback approved in 1979. The status of <br />the DNR wooods has not changed. Neither addition would appear to <br />have any significant impact on drainage or septic systems. The <br />property s heavily wooded, such that the additions will likely <br />never be seen by any neighboring property owner. <br />Although I had indicated to the ‘^'*a <br />there were significant issues with this f" \?J,Vtedsearch of the files suggests that c^e issues at that tj.me «l®te <br />to the dry buildable area of the lot (which was ®J®*ted in 1978 <br />under the current 2 acre regulations) and the fac v,e*»n <br />property contained significantly more wetlands than had been <br />indicated at the time of subdivision. The wetlands and lot area <br />are not an issue with this application. <br />As of this writing, staff has received no comments from any <br />of the Property owners, ^ncluoing the DNR. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Please review the hardship and unusual property conditions <br />statements presented by the applicants. This ®^^® ^ <br />constrained by the topography and alternate drainfield site, and <br />the proposed additions are definitely located so as to have the <br />least impact on and be least impacted by the site constraints. <br />If Planning Commission feels the hardships and unique site <br />conditions presented justify the granting of the re^e®tea <br />setback variances, a recommendation for approval would be <br />appropriate.