|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1978
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 10:37:55 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 10:37:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 /> November 30, 1978 <br /> Page 4 <br /> right to replace the existing porch. <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 /> d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #736. Motion by Krushchke second by Schwahn to grant a variance of <br /> 19 feet from required setback from normal high waterline. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition will not encroach on shoreline any more than the <br /> existing residence does. <br /> 2. Many other residences in the area are as close or closer to <br /> the lake. <br /> 3. Denial of variance would not provide an improved protection <br /> of the shoreline. <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 <br /> public interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #737. Motion by Schwahn second by Voges to grant a variance of 4 feet <br /> from required setback from front property line. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition cannot be moved farther back because of embankment. <br /> 2. Highwood Estates is comprised of predominently non-conforming <br /> structures because of terrain and oldness of the plat. <br /> 3. The 16 foot setback allowed by variance would be a substantial <br /> improvement in the setback. <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 /> #738. Motion by Kruschke second by Schwahn to grant a variance of <br /> 22 feet from required setback from right-of-way of CTH "AB" and to <br /> deny requested variance from shoreland setback. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Lot slopes rapidly downward from road to lake approximately <br /> a 31° slope; more than 40 feet difference between road grade <br /> and lake. Floor elevation of garage would be above roof line <br /> of residence if garage had to be located back against the re- <br /> sidence.; this would require considerable fill with a substan- <br /> tial retaining wall. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.