|
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 /> April 26, 1979 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 4(4; 2. Spoils shall be seeded with fast growing grasses. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #763. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant the Special Exceptio <br /> Permit as proposed. <br /> 1 FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Raised railroad bed located between project and creek effectively <br /> prevents siltation or erosion problems. <br /> SPECIAL INSTRUCTION: <br /> As proposed. Motion carried. <br /> #764. Motion by Krushchke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of <br /> 3 feet, more or less, from the required setback from Willow Street and <br /> a variance of 2.8 feet, more or less, from the required distance from <br /> the rear (South) lot line. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The Paynes bought the house from a developer and were not re- <br /> sponsible for location of the house on the lot. <br /> 2. Sale of house by the Paynes is held up because of disclosure of <br /> the setback and rear yard violations. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> CI; Motion carried. <br /> #765. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to hold in abeyance until <br /> May public hearing. Motion carried. <br /> #766. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Although the variance would permit less fill in a flood zone <br /> area it would also lesson the flood protection to the building <br /> which is a primary purpose of the ordinance. <br /> 2. Less flood protection may be acceptable to present owner but <br /> it could also have an adverse effect upon a future owner, insurance <br /> claims, etc. and resulting costs to the public. <br /> 3. There is no topographic hardship and engineering of the slope <br /> will accomodate airplanes; basically, the only evident hardship <br /> is financial and this the Board may not consider. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. <br /> #507. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to deny. The Board now has <br /> not jurisdiction in this matter because of the new flood zone ordinance <br /> effective on September 26, 1978. Motion carried. <br /> C7` The meeting was adjourned. <br /> Phyllis Schwahn, <br /> Secretary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.