1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HOARD OI'' AI>,TUfi'I'MI?N'I' - Miniil-w; J;Inr 111, P)/() PacTP 4 (71M: (b) . Utilized stakes which "appeared" to be correct 3 plus years after survey was recorded. (c) . Verified, as being correct, the front lot stake utilized by Zoning Inspector Baldwin on the first inspection. (d) . Did not indicate that he had obtained verification of stakes other than his own assump tion. 2. Dave Cheney Surveyor of said property stated that (a) . stakes were set at time of original plat, July of 1971, and should have been set at time of survey which divided platted lot into two lots on 12-19-74. (b) . All survey stakes could not be found when Mr. Marble requested he determine building location on May 28, 1979. (c) . There had been much construction work done at front of property, ie: road grading and improvement, snow plowing, etc. CONCLUSION: a. Mr. Marble assumed that lot stakes he found were correct; based on this assumption he determined the location of the building. b. Questions of stake location which arose at the time of the second inspection should have been equally as apparent be- fore building construction had commenced. c. Reliance on stakes which had been set 3 plus years previousl and which were subject to damage or moving during road con- struction, etc. was an error of Mr. Marble's and subject only to his decision. d. Lot stake locations could have been verified before construc tion commenced. e. Evidence discloses that hardship was self-imposed, unneces- sary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #792. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Mr. Hawley's testimony presented only a resume of the proposed Lessee's state licensing and qualifications disclosed that: St. Maria Goretti, Parish recognized the need for a day care facility in the area; the P.D.Q. store located in the same building was in favor; and, Town of Fitchburg said they were in favor. 2. Mr. Hawley's testimony did not disclose: a. A national or local emergency. b. That proposed exception was not contrary to intent of Zoning Ordinance or public interest. c. Any unusual conditions or circumstances. 3. The Zoning Ordinance permits day care centers only in the resi- dential districts with the provision of obtaining a conditional use permit. Section 10. 05 (2) (a) ; 10. 06 (2) (a) ; 10.07 (2) (a) ; 10.071 (2) (a) ; 10.08 (2) (a) and 10.09 (2) (a) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance. Tho lhow Zoning Ordinance does not list day care centers as a permitted use or with a conditional use in any district other than residentially oriented.