1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- Minutes of Board Adjustment 7/18/75 #370. Appeal by Rollin T. Woolever for a variance from setback from C.T.H. "D" and side yard requirements as provided by Section 10.17 (2) and 10.07 (6) of the Dane County Zoning Ordinance. Variances are necess- , to permit an addition to a non-conforming residence located on hot 6, Block 1, Morrisonville, Section 6, Township of Windsor. IN FAVOR: R.T. Woolever, existing residence and garage are non-confor;nino The garage has a partial foundation which could be used if variance were granted as requested. 'Water leaking into basement at rear of house could be corrected by addition. OTHERS IN FAVOR: None OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD: No Communication Dane County Highway letter; no objection. #371. Appeal by Edgar Judd for a Special Exception Permit to build an addition to a residence located in the Wisconsin River flood plain in part of Government Lot #4, SW4 SEA Section 23, Township of Mazomanie. IN FAVOR: E. Judd - request is to permit a carport addition to residence located in flood plain. The addition will consist of a roof supported by posts, there will be no walls or electrical service. OTHERS IN FAVOR: None OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD: No Communication The Public Hearing was closed. #361. Motion by Voges 2nd by Dahlk to grant a variance of 451 from required setback from C.T.H. "KP" as per finding of fact: 1. Existing structure is non-conforming. 2. No increase in size or non-conformity. 3. No increased vision problem caused. 4. Repair is necessary, 5. No objection from County Highway Department, CONCLUSION: A. Unnecessary hardship caused by non-conforming location. B. Variance will provide right that others enjoy. C. Variance is not contrary to public interest or rights of others. Motion carried. #362. Notion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a 24' variance from rear yard requirement as per finding of fact. 1. Existing residence is non-conforming, variance would be required regardless of location of addition. 2. Existing will and septic and slope of terrain cause problems of locating addition.' CONCLUSION: A. Unnecessary hardship caused by non-conforming location and terrain and location of well and septic. B. No infringement of rights to property in rear. `Motion carried. #363. Motion by Voges ,pecond by Dahlk to grant a variance of 31' 4" from rear yard requirement as per finding of fact: 1. Non-conforming location requires variance for any repair - remo- deling. 2. No increase in non-conformity. 3. Building is structurally sound. CONCLUSION: A. Unnecessary hardship caused by nonconforming location.