DCPZP-2009-00697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 of 8 September 24,2009 6. Ms. Manternach said the Reads appeal would be considered by the Town of Pleasant Springs at their October 14, 2009 Plan Commission and October 22, 2009 Town Board meetings, and asked the Board for approval on the variance contingent on Town approval. Conclusions: 1) Unnecessary Hardship: It would be unnecessarily burdensome to prevent the owners from retaining the existing permitted residential use of their property. 2) Unique Limitations of the Property: The substandard lot was part of a subdivision platted in 1950, before Dane County Shoreland regulations became effective. 3) No Harm to Public Interests: The proposed new house construction requires minimal relief, with only a lot width variance needed. Its placement respects the full 75 feet setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, providing for infiltration of runoff. Proposed lot coverage percentage is very low. Motion carried: 5 –0, with CONDITION. The Board agreed by consensus to adjourn for a 10-minute break at 8:25 p.m. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m. W. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Zoning Administrator's and Assistant Zoning Administrator's Reports, including distribution of materials, if any, discussion, and possible action regarding the following topics: a. Draft amendments to the Dane County Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures. Board members discussed two documents prepared by Assistant Zoning Administrator Schutte: A 09/23/2009 revised version of the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures and an 09/23/2009 revised version Proposed BOA Rules and Procedure Changes -- Questions & Answers. Both documents included highlighted sections to be clarified. The following final revisions were discussed (Italics indicate changes; items discussed are shown below in the order in which they appear in the Rules and Procedures, not necessarily in the order of discussion.) 1) PAGE 6–5.d) ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR VARIANCE APPEALS OR NON—CONTESTED CASES: • Under 10, the Board discussed adding the phrase "if the Board deems it necessary" to the end of the first sentence, but agreed by consensus that the appellant or applicant should always b afforded an "opportunity for rebuttal of the testimony," and did not change the text. 2) PAGE 7 – 5.e) ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OR OTHER CONTESTED CASES: • Under "CALL TO ORDER" 1), change to "Call to order by the Chair. The Public Hearing Notice shall be read." This provides for a party other than Zoning Staff to read the Notice. • Under"STATEMENTS OF NEIGHBORS AND OTHERS NOT PRESENTING CASES" 21). Change by adding the following final sentence: "Board members may question each person presenting a statement." This provides for questions by Board members of all parties making statements, consistent with 6), 8), 11), 14), 16) and 19). • Under "BOARD ACTION" 24), change to "Board members shall summarize Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when reaching a Decision, and may use certiorari review standards." This provides for use of standards recognized by Courts, as recommended by Corporation Counsel Marcia MacKenzie, and as described in Chapter 17 of the 2006 Zoning Board Handbook. Board members discussed creating a `checklist' of certiorari review standards to use during administrative appeal hearings, as some members currently use a checklist for hardship tests in variance appeal cases. Chair Schulz offered copies of the checklist he uses in variance appeal cases, and directed Schutte to distribute his document by email and to work with Corporation Counsel to create a similar checklist of certiorari review standards to use during administrative appeal hearings. • Under "BOARD ACTION" 25), change second sentence from "Approval of this document shall be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board" to "Approval of this document shall