1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page two Minutes Board of Adjustment Meetirrg of December 15, 1972 #206 Appeal of Pete Burns from denial of a remit to build an addition to a residence on a parcel of land located in the P NYC 4 of Section 11, Township of Montrose. Pewit denied because setback from town road.is less than required kr the Dane County Zoning Ordinance. IN FAVOR: Pete Burns, proposed addition will be in line with house. Existing house is non-conforming. Addition to South side of house would also require a variance if addition were to be built on that side. OTHERS IN FAVOR: None OPPOSED: None TOWN LARD: Not present Telephone call from A. Mel)enberger, Town Board not opposed if addition is in line with existing house. #203 cation by Holte to grant variance as per finding of fact: 1. The variance is necessary to secure for the applicant, rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area. 2. The variance is not contrary,- to public interest or damaging to the rights ofcther persons or property values in the area. 3. The var;once is not contrary to the coral rehensi—e plan. Second by Dahlk, carried. #20). Motion by Dahlk to grant both variances, 3.5' side yard and 9.5' ROW setback, as per findinc ' fact. 1. The variance is necessary to secure for the applican4, rights enjoyed by other property owr rs in the area. 2. The variance i_s not contrary to public interest or damagirg to the rights of her perscns or property values in the area. 3. The variance is not contrary to the comprehensive plan. Second by Holte, carried. #205 Motion to grant by Holte as per finding of fact. 1. The variance is necessary to secure for the applicant, rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area. 2. The variance is not contrary to public interest or damaging to the rights of cA,her persons or property values in the area. 3. The variance is not contrary to the comprehensive plan. Second by Dahlk, carried. #206 Motion by Dahlk to grant as per finding of fact. 1. The variance is necessary to secure for the applicant, rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area. 2. The variance is not contrary to public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or property values in the area. 3. The variance is not contrary to the comprehensive plan. Second by Holte, carried. The meeting was adjourned. tior {