Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> October 25, 1979 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 4:: #840. Appeal by American TV for a variance from required parking as pro- <br /> vided by Section 10.18 (4) (d) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance. Variance <br /> is necessary to permit reduced parking area for a new retail store on Lot <br /> #3, C.S.M. #1536 in part of the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 - Section 34, Town of Madiso . <br /> IN FAVOR: Len Mattiol; George Ruhl; L. J. Enger, Zoning Administrator, <br /> for informational purposes OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter from <br /> Town Board, in favor with condition; letter from City Disposal Co. expres <br /> sing concern. <br /> #841. Appeal by Ronald Furseth for a variance from required setback from <br /> road as provided by Section 10.17 (3) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance. <br /> Variance is necessary to permit construction of a swimming pool at 1224 <br /> Lincoln Road in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 - Section 6, Town of Dunkirk. <br /> IN FAVOR: R. Furseth OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None <br /> #842. Appeal by Kenneth Laufenberg for a variance from required setback <br /> from road as provided by Section 10.17 (2) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance. <br /> Variance is necessary to permit location of a farm accessory building in <br /> the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 - Section 21, Town of Perry. <br /> IN FAVOR: K. Laufenberg OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter from <br /> Dane County Highway, no objection, in favor. <br /> 4110 #828. Re-call on appeal - IN FAVOR: G. Brum OPPOSED: None <br /> COMMUNICATION: Letter from Dane County Highway, no objection. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #828. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 6 feet <br /> from required setback from CTH "P". <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming as to setback. <br /> 2. Proposed addition is in an indentation of the residence and will <br /> not cause a further encroachment into setback. <br /> 3. Denial of variance will prevent utilization of this area of resi- <br /> dence. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #829. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 6 feet <br /> from required side yard and 43 1/2 feet from required rear yard <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing property is very shallow in depth; an accessory building <br /> could not be placed on it without a variance of some kind. <br /> C <br />