OCT. 26, 1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

front side of said building to 20 feet. This was seconded by Warren Franklin and unanimously passed. The next item on the agenda was Case Number 9-1983 filed by Theising Veneer Company, Inc. who was present by Dave Mathers and Jim Mathers, and their attorney Michael Cook. The attorney advised that the publications and legal notices were in order. Mr. Cook then proceeded to advise that the variance requested consisted of a variance of the development standards with respect to side and/or rear yard set-back requirements to permit construction of the one-story metal building 70 feet wide and 190 feet long and 24 feet in height for the purpose of among other things enclosing existing soaking vats used in the veneer manufacturing which is done by the petitioner. He further advised that it wou~d be a great hardship to remove and relocate the soaking vats and that the set-back would be approximately 1 foot on the norther property line and 5¼ feet on the south property line adjacent to the Con-Rail property. The builder, Dave Loudermilk, explained the location on the tract and clearance in relation to other areas in town. Specifically he advised that the railroad right-of-way was wider here than most areas and even with the building being placed as it is there would be more clearance than other areas in town. The Board then requested comments from the floor. There were no remonstrators present and after some discussion the Board proceeded to a motion. Warren Franklin then proceeded to make the following findings of fact: 1. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY because: the existing use of Petitioner's real estate is un- affected, the variance sought relating solely to development standards. Moreover, a variance of setback requirements along the property line in question adjacent to a railroad right of way will not inhibit sight lines or effect pedestrian or traffic movements.