Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE DANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 21, 1975 <br /> #259 - continued <br /> IN FAVOR: D. Benson, owner, Don Knudson, builder. Proposal is to add <br /> eight alleys to existing building. These will have to be in line with <br /> existing alleys. Question, Erickson: Do you have an alternative proposal? <br /> D. Knudson, the only alternative would be to abandon the existing eight <br /> :lleys and build new to provide needed increased capacity. This is the <br /> •nly bowling facility in the area. Further, the building was non-confor, ' <br /> when purchased by Mr. Benson, no increase in non-conformity is planned. <br /> OTHERS IN FAVOR: None. OPPOSED: None. TOWN BOARD: Sanford Anderson, <br /> town chairman, notified the Zoning Department that the Town Board had <br /> no objection. <br /> Communication: Letter from Warren O. Somerfeld, Department of Transpor- <br /> tation, City of Madison, recommending denial of appeal based on one of <br /> the basic recommendations of TAGIT, a citizen advisory group formed by <br /> the Dane County Regional Planning Commission,to disc'ourage construction <br /> of new highway facilities in the county and instead up-grade to higher <br /> standards and greater capacity, existing roads. Question, Erickson: How <br /> far from the City of Madison are you located? Mr. Benson: Approximately <br /> 25 miles. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #256. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant 8 ' variance from <br /> rear yard and 2%' from side yard requirements. <br /> Finding of Fact: 1. It is a proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to secure rights enjoyed by <br /> 4110 other property owners in area. <br /> 3. Not contrary to public interest or rights of others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #257. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant 114 variance from <br /> setback requirements. <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Unique conditions. <br /> 3. Not contrary to public interest or rights of others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #258. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant Special Exception <br /> Permit for the construction of a bridge subject to requirements of D.N.R. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #259. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson to grant 1I ' variance from <br /> setback requirements (c/1 Hwy.51). <br /> 1. Proven unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Unique conditions. <br /> 3. Not contrary to public interest or rights of others. <br /> 4. Only feasible plan to utilize existing alleys. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Communication: A letter from Gus Harms, attorney for Lee Merick (Appeal <br /> #176) was read. Mr. Harms requested reconsideration of the denial of <br /> Appeal #176 based on the granting of a permit by D.N.R. for the dam. <br /> Discussion followed: ,Gene Skaar, chairman of the Dane County Farm <br /> Drainage Board was present. Motion by Dahlk, second by Erickson, to <br /> rescind previous action of denial and thereby grant a Special Exception <br /> Permit for construction of the dam based on findings of D.N.R. Motion <br /> carried. <br /> The meeting was adjourned. Harland Dahlk, Secretary <br />