Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> July 26, 1979 <br /> Page 3 <br /> IN FAVOR: Steve Pulvermacher OPPOSED: None LETTER: S. Gerhardt, <br /> no objection. TOWN BOARD: Not present. <br /> #806. Appeal by Quentin L. Braun for a variance from required lot width <br /> and area as provided by Section 10.07 (4) (b) - Dane County Zoning Ordi- <br /> nance. Variances are necessary to permit the creation of new lots from <br /> I existing Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block #7, E. L. Gallagher Plat, First Addition, <br /> Section 5, Town of Blooming Grove. <br /> IN FAVOR: Roger Stauter, Stauter Realty, representing Mr. Braun OPPOSED: <br /> None TOWN BOARD: Letter in favor. <br /> The public hearing closed. <br /> #784. Motion by Voges second by Purcell to hold action until the August <br /> 23rd meeting in order for the applicant to be present in person. Motion <br /> carried. <br /> #795. Motion by Schwahn second by Voges to grant a variance of 11 feet <br /> from the required setback from USH 12. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition is to an existing residence, said addition will not close <br /> to the road than the residence. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> ILIW b. Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #797. Motion by Krushchke second by Schwahn to grant a variance of <br /> 266 square feet from maximum permitted area of accessory building with <br /> the condition that the existing 10' x 12' metal storage building be re- <br /> moved upon completion of the proposed building. <br /> FINDING OF FACTS: <br /> 1. Addition to residence prevented by septic regulations. <br /> 2. Said addition to residence would have provided the square footage <br /> to permit the proposed garage without a variance. <br /> 3. Other properties in this area have garages of similar size as the <br /> proposed building. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Irkliiile #798. Motion by Purcell second by Voges to grant a variance of 27 <br /> feet from required setback from C.T.H. "V". <br />