1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I50Al2D OF ADJUSTMENT - Mi.nutcN AU&iIJ L 23, 1.970 Page 2 FINDING OI' 1'AC1 : 1. Addition will be in line with existing wall of residence and will not encroach farther into the required side yard. 2. Bathroom addition was necessary for the renovation of the older home by Operation Fresh Start. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #809. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to deny variance. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Testimony diclosed that Mr. Olson was not aware of where his lot line was at the time he applied for the Zoning Permit for the building nor at the time of the first inspection nor at the date of this hearing. 2. Dane County Zoning inspectors are not authorized to determine lot lines or location of buildings. Their job is to verify compliance of the location of buildings as per provisions of the Ordinance and based on lot stakes or lines identified by owner or builder. 3. Owner is responsible for compliance with, and is presumed to be aware of zoning regulations, lot lines, etc. CONCLUSION: Hardship is self-imposed; unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. #810. Motion by Voges second by Schwahn to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Variance was requested to alleviate blocking of kitchen windows. 2. There is not topographic or other reason that would prevent the building from being located in compliance with side yard require- ment. 3. Hardship based on convenience only, unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. #811. Motion by Schwahn second by Krushchke to deny: FINDING OF FACT: 1. There are several other recourses available without requiring a variance and which would provide additional storage. ie: Addi- tion to residence; connecting existing garage to residence, the result of which could be considered primary building for compu- tation of square feet; removal of boathouse, etc. CONCLUSION: Unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried.