Laserfiche WebLink
ZONING MINUTES - Page 3 _ Bd. of Adjustment <br /> #513. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 17 feet <br /> from required setback from Woodland Drive as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. Because of the location of other buildings and unsuitable, <br /> wet land to the west, the proposed location is the only feasible <br /> location without utilizing good agricultural land. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public - <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #514. Motion by Dahlk, second Voges to grant a variance of 12 feet <br /> from the required setback from C.T.H. K as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. The existing residence is too close to road. <br /> 2. Improvements in road have made the residence more non-conforming. <br /> 3. No pending improvements and no objection from Dane County <br /> Highway. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardhsip. <br /> B. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> D. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #515. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant $500.00 variance as per <br /> finding of fact. <br /> 1. Cottage is structurally sound. <br /> 2. Repair will not increase the non-conforming use nor make the <br /> structure more non-conforming. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #516. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant a variance of 17 feet <br /> from required setback from normal high water line as per finding of <br /> fact. <br /> 1. Deck additions will be extended sideways only and will not en- <br /> croach farther towards the lake than the existing deck. <br /> 2. Kitchen addition will extend onto existing deck area. <br /> 3. Other residences in the area are closer to the lake. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of tohers or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> C. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> --Motion carried. <br />