Laserfiche WebLink
MIHDTBS OP THE PIANMIMG COMMISSIOH HBBTIHG HELD JUEE 6, 1988 <br />#1283 ESCHER COHTIW <br />Mabusth noted that because the shed is attached to the <br />garage, a 10' setback is normally required. <br />Mr. Escher proposed moving the shed back, however <br />because of the pilings he would only be able to move the <br />shed back approximately 2' which would place the shed <br />approximately 1.5' from the lot line. <br />Mabusth noted that a firewall should be required because <br />of the close proximity of the lot line. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this <br />matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recomment.* <br />approval of the after-the-fact variance subject to the <br />shed being moved back locating it 1'6" from the property <br />line and subject to a firewall being installed. Motion, <br />Ayes 3, Nays 1. Johnson voted nay feeling the problem <br />should be rectified either by lot line rearrangement or <br />relocating the shed to the side of the garage. <br />#1284 DOUGLAS KIRCBRER <br />1520 BOHES POINT ROAD <br />APTER-THB-PACT VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC BEARING 10t20-10s35 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />were noted. <br />Mr. t Mrs. Douglas Kirchner were present for this <br />matter. Mr. Kirchnex apologised for his actions <br />involving the after-the-fact nature of his application. <br />Kelley explained the request involving an after-the-fact <br />average lakeshore setback and 75-250* hardcover variance <br />to allow a constructed deck. The existing residence <br />extended 11' in front of the average lakeshore setback <br />and the deck now extends 26' in front of the average <br />lakeshore setback. The 75-250' existing hardcover prior <br />to the construction of the deck consisted of 25.9%, and <br />total hcrdcover after construction of the deck consists <br />of 29.3% (3.4% increase). <br />Bellows noted that the adjacent property owner contacted <br />her voicing concern regarding how far out the deck is <br />extended, however, this is contrary to their written <br />approval to allow the applicants to keep the deck <br />because it does not obstruct their view.