|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1979
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 9:36:03 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 9:35:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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 - Minutes <br /> October 25, 1979 <br /> Page 6 <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Adjacent property is owned by the Jamestown Land Co. , Fontana <br /> Land Company and Three Fountains Association - purchase of addi- <br /> tional land would be very difficult if not impossible. <br /> 2. Adjacent land is utilized as a parking area for an apartment comple <br /> thereby preserving open space. <br /> 3. The Zoning Ordinance definitions tend to be confusing as to a <br /> specific method of determining side yard. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahn to recommend that the Zoning Ordinanc - <br /> be clarified as to the specific meaning and determination of "side yard". <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #836. Motion by Schwahn, second by Voges to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Deck was constructed without applying for the required zoning <br /> permit. <br /> 2. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance permit a deck or stoop access <br /> to the rear of the residence although it would not be as large <br /> as the one constructed. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> (11, <br /> 1. Self imposed hardship. <br /> 2. Deck size constructed is a convenience. <br /> 3. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #837. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 8 feet <br /> from required setback from Champion Circle. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Site plan drafted by architect was in error causing the builder to <br /> locate the residence short of the required setback. <br /> 2. Builder was not aware of error until the building was substantially <br /> completed and a mortgage survey was done. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #838. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 15 1/2 <br /> feet from required setback from USH 51 and a variance of 12 feet from <br /> required setback from normal high waterline. Variance from left side <br /> yard denied. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming as to setback from road, <br /> pertinent addition is second story and will not cause further <br /> encroachment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.