1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes October 5, 1978 Page 2 A 13. ) On August 26, 1977 the builder telephoned the Dane County Zoning Department and indicated that there might be a problem with the front setback requirement, and that a request for a variance might be filed. On that date, the builder requested that the final inspec- tion not be performed by the Dane County Zoning Department. 14. ) On August 30, 1977, a Dane County Zoning Inspector inspected the premises and foun$ that construction had been completed and that the thirty-foot front setback requirement had not been met. 15. ) A survey performed at the request of the}builder on September 8, 1977 shows that the distance from thefront of the house to the front property line varies from 25' 5" to 28' 7". The house has a two-foot cantilevered main or first floor level. There is not apparent reason why the front of the house had to be placed close to the front setback line. 16. ) The residence on the property was constructed using a freespan truss-type joist which will make the residence extremely difficult to move. Any moving process will be fairly expensive. 17. ) The boulder behind the house will also be difficult to move. 18. ) The builder did not indicate why the boulder could not be moved using the same process as before - by digging a pit or trench behind and below the boulder and pushing or pulling the boulder by means of mechanical equipment. The rear of the property is accessible Cr to mechanical equipment. 19. ) The builder did not establish that a building with this type of construction is impossible to move. Bob Sell, Building and Safety Division, DILHR, indicates that, such a building may be moved if ex- treme care is used. Sections of the basement wall might have to be removed. 20. ) Although one or more residences in the area may be near the front setback line, any such overages do not confer a license upon the applicant to violate the ordinance. 21. ) Although a written legal opinion was requested from the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Board recognizes that the opinion is advisory only and that the Board cannot substitute the judgments and opinions of the Office of the Corporation Counsel for its own. The Board did not do so in this case. CONCLUSION 1. ) The Board of Adjustment acts as an agent of the County Board and not of the variance applicant. 2. ) Self-imposed hardship, i.e. , hardship resulting from inatten- tion, mistake, inadvertant error, oversight and the like does not con-