1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINU7S - PAGE 6 #507. Motion by Voges, secor by Dahlk to hold in abeyance for 60 days ir to allow appeal to re-zone. Land is zoned A-1, proposed use requires at least C-1. Board may not grant a use which is not permitted. Motion carried. #508. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant a variance of 17 feet 2 inches from required rear yard as per finding of fact: 1. Shallow depth of lot as compared to adjacent lots; existing, preferable trees; and natural drainage way extending across front of lot, create problem. 2. Open area from rear lot line North to lake helps to provide open space intent of ordinance. 3. A "general concept" structure could not be located on the lot without a variance of either front setback or rear yard. CONCLUSION: A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. B. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #509. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant the special exception permit subject to DNR specifications and the following requirements: 1. Spoil shall be dispersed so as to minimize effect on the sur- rounding flood plain. 2. Spoil shall be seeded to prevent erosion. 3. Overflow pipe shall be installed so as to prevent normal flow of water from the Maunesha back-water into the pond. 4. Dane County Zoning Department shall be notified of completion to verify compliance with permit. Motion carried. #510. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to hold in abeyance for one week to allow for presentation of new information. Motion carried. #480. Held in abeyance from public hearing of July 16, 1976. Motion by Voges, second Dahlk to grant a 5 foot variance from required rear yard as per finding of fact: • 1. Deck will not extend beyond existing basement stair-well and will provide an enclosed entrance to basement. 2. Variance #382 was granted to neighbor to permit repair and addition of a deck. Neighbor is closer to rear line than Ferris 's are 3. Open space intent of ordinance is also being provided by the Town owned property between the rear lot line and the lake; a dis- tance of approximately 1OO feet. CONCLUSION: A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship_ B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. e" , C. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. D. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. The meeting was adjourned. Harland Dahlk, Secretary