1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - JUNE 6, 1969 The Dane County Board of Adjustment met at 7:30 P.M., May 29, 1969 in Room 226, City-County Building, Madison, Wisconsin to conduct a public hearing in accordance with the published notice. The following members were present: Millard Erickson, Chairman; Oscar Holte, Vice-Chairman and Hermann Eisner, Secretary. Also present, W. G. Massarene, Zoning Supervisor. The Meeting was called to order, the notice of public hearing was read and the following cases were heard: 1. Appeal by James E. Smithback from the denial of a permit to build a warehouse and office in the SW4 NE1 of Section 36, Town of Madison. Permit denied because setback from road is less than required by the Dane County Zoning Ordinance. THOSE IN FAVOR: James E. Smithback explained that he needed a thiry foot setback from the right of way in order to have sufficient space to allow parking in the rear of the proposed building, as well as in front. The blacktop of the parking area would be extended to the pavement of the road. The cement block building now on the lot would be demolished, and a new metal structure erected in its place. The front of the new building would be in line with that of the old. The zoning supervisor was queried as to the total amount of variance and replied that it would amount to eight feet measured from the center of the road. THOSE OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD OF MADISON: Supervisor Pierstorff said the Town Board of Madison concurs, and has no objection to the appeal. ACTION BY THE BOARD: The appeal by James E. Smithback is granted (moved by Eisner, seconded by Holte, carried unanimously). 2. Appeal by Austin A. Healey Jr., from the denial of a permit to build an addition to a residence on a parcel of land in the SE4 NI4 and the NE 4 SW4 of Section 9, Town of Medina. Permit denied because setback from state highway is less than required by the Dane County Zoning Ordinance. THOSE IN FAVOR: Austin A. Healy Jr., explained that the addition was needed for living space and could not be placed elsewhere and conform to space and convenience requirements of the occupants. At the time he purchased the land, he said, he had no knowledge that the setback did not conform. It was planned to build the addition projecting two feet further toward the road than the existing building, but in all other respects conforming. The zoning supervisor was asked the amount of variance requested, and answered that it would be a total of thirty nine feet. Also, that measurements taken when the Board inspected the property indicated the front of the existing building to be sixty-three feet from the center line of the road, which is standard setback for a town road, whereas a state highway requires one hundred feet.