Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ilEETIWG HELD SEPTE !BER 6^ X972 Rige 2 <br />Pex Ressler represented himself to answer <br />questions as requested in a prior meeting. <br />Members asked why the present garage could <br />not be removed and the new one built on <br />that site. Mr. Ressler answered that he had <br />purchased the property from his father and <br />their furniture was stored in that garage <br />and as soon as a new one was built the <br />furniture would be moved in there and the old <br />one torn down. Also noted, was the request <br />was to place the garage one foot from the <br />property line. All members concurred that <br />there should be no variance allowed less than <br />three feet as the building code had different <br />requirements for fire protection on any <br />construction less than that. <br />GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE <br />3683 North Shore Drive <br />Poisson moved. Hays seconded, that they recommend <br />that a survey of tne property should be made <br />showing present and proposed structures. <br />Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). <br />Poisson again instructed the secretary to <br />explore the possibility of amending the <br />ordinance to make it mandatory that a survey <br />be required for all variances. <br />PROPOSED ORDINANCE <br />Surveys Required <br />Q Roy Kriesel represented himself in an application <br />for a garage setback of 4* instead of 10* as <br />required. He showed a sketch of the proposed <br />site and presented a letter from the neighbor <br />stating lie had no objection if garage was <br />placed as shown. Mr. Kriesel stated the <br />reason for the variance was that the contour <br />of the land dictated that tiie garage bo built <br />on this site; also, that access to the <br />garage was facilitated by this placement. <br />GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE <br />4132 Highwood Road <br />Discussion was again held on surveysc Mr. <br />Kriesel stated his property was surveyed and <br />he nad three stakes and one was removed by <br />municipal sewer installation. Members <br />instructed him to have the fourth one <br />replaced so the Building Inspector would be <br />aware of the property line so there could be <br />no discrepancy waen the site was inspect'^d. <br />Ryerse moved. Hays seconded, that approval be <br />recommended under these conditions. Motion, <br />Ayes (6) - Nays (0). <br />Members studied the proposed division of <br />Forest Arms owned by Robert Dongoske to bring <br />a 31' deeded access to a dredged channel to <br />Forest Lake for Block 1 of tiiat addition. <br />DIVISION <br />4250 Forest Lake Drive <br />(Continued)