|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1976
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 10:24:54 AM
Creation date
4/29/2016 10:24:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES <br /> December 17, 1976 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 1(11> #542. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant the Special Exception <br /> as proposed. <br /> 1. Regional flood elevation is 740.8' - floor elevation of resi- <br /> dence is 742.9' which complys with requirement of the ordinance. <br /> 2. Residence is not located in flood-way. . <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #543. Motion by Dahlk second Erickson to grant a variance of 19.5 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. Existing residence is too close to rear yard. <br /> 2. Other location of addition is not feasible. <br /> 3. Will facilitate entrance for wife with arthritic condition. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> C. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> D. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> #544. Motion by Dahlk second by Erickson to arant variance of 10 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact. . <br /> 1. Other location of addition is not feasible. <br /> 2. Highwood Estates has many non-conforming residences for which <br /> variances have been granted to permit additions, etc. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance is necessary to prcwide right enjoyed by others. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #545. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant a variance of 2 feet <br /> as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. Proposed addition will not be closer to road than existing <br /> building. <br /> 2. Required setback would cause construction problems with roof <br /> lines etc. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> C. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #546. Motion by Dahlk second by Erickson to grant a Special Exception <br /> Permit to construct a drainage ditch as proposed. <br /> 1. Spoil shall be distributed evenly adjacent lands but may not be <br /> deposited in the flood plain area. <br /> V <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.