|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1974
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1974
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 10:30:48 AM
Creation date
4/29/2016 10:30:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 Dec. 20, 1974 Page 3 <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. variance preserves the ordinance without injustice to individual. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to public interest or rights of others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 326. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to deny 4 foot side yard variance <br /> and grant 34 foot 2 inch variance from Shoreland (setback from waters <br /> as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. deck, in order to be utilized, need not be 10 feet wide; no hard- <br /> ship proven. <br /> 2. access to residence from shore level is necessary. <br /> 3. deck will provide safe, level, walking space beside residence. <br /> 4. old 4 foot deck was inadvertently removed to facilitate grading. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. variance preserves the ordinance without injustice to indvidual. <br /> B. proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> C. condition is unique. <br /> D. variance is necessary to secure for the applicant, rights which <br /> are enjoyed by other property owners in the area. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 327. Motion by Voges, second by Dahlk to grant 35 foot variance from set- <br /> back requirement and to include and grant a 7 foot variance from <br /> left side yard requirement as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. need of addition is evident. <br /> 2. Zoning Ordinance prohibits two accessory buildings on one parcel. <br /> 3. existing garage is non conforming but addition will not encroach <br /> any farther into setback area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance is necessary to secure for the individual, rights that <br /> are enjoyed by other property owners in the area. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to public interest or the rights of othe s <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 328. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant Special Exception Permit <br /> with instructions that recommendations of S.C.S. are to be followed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 329. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant Special Exception Permit <br /> subject to DNR requirements and the following special instructions: <br /> 1. Existing filled pathway on North side of Sugar River and extended <br /> approximately 45 feet South of the river and bridge, shall be re- <br /> graded to blend in with existing terrain and be seeded to prevent <br /> erosion. <br /> 2. Pathway to South of Sugar River beginning, approximately, 45 feet <br /> South of bridge, shall be at existing (natural) terrain a env Lion. <br /> Topsoil, to a depth of approximately 12 inches, may be replaced <br /> with clay soil. <br /> 3. Ponds and ditches shall be sloped and seeded to prevent erosion <br /> and siltation. <br /> • <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 330. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant variance of 6 feet from <br /> setback requirement as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non conforming but addition will not en- <br /> croach farther into setback area. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to permit any addition or remodeling of <br /> residence. <br /> 3. Existing residence is structurally sound and worth maintaining. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.