|
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
HOARY) 1)T ADJIMMI;N'I' - Mi Wotan <br /> Juno 2H, I ')79 <br /> Page 2 <br /> #796. IN FAVOR: G. Lindberg OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD: Not pre- <br /> sent. COUNTY HIGHWAY: Letter, no objection. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #783. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 5.4 feet <br /> from the required setback from front property line. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Determination based on one lot only and provision of rights to pro- <br /> perty owner there on. <br /> 2. Location of residence and septic system preclude other location of <br /> garage. <br /> 3. Several garages on Guam Point Drive are as close or closer than <br /> the proposed garage. <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 /> #785. Motion by Purcell, second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 19 feet <br /> from the required setback from center of Kingsland Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Building location was changed as per advise from Town Chairman. <br /> 4., 2. Moving the building back to required setback would require sub- <br /> stantial amount of fill and would create a problem with the exist- <br /> ing well. <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 /> #786. Motion by Schwahn, second by Voges to grant a variance of 5 feet <br /> from the required setback from front property line. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Steep slope of lot from road down to lake prevents construction <br /> farther back. <br /> 2. Variances have been granted to others for similar construction. <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 /> #787. Motion by Purcell, second by Voges to grant a variance of 12 feet <br /> (Iry from the required setback from the centerline of USH 51. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.