1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes December 16, 1977 Pg. 2 Afr Ihie #625. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 13 feet from required setback from Brickson Park Road, right-of-way as per finding of fact. (NOTE: right-of-way was determined by the road survey, Brickson Park Plat by George Weir, Dane County Surveyor) . 1. Existing building is non-conforming as to setback from right- of-way. elk/ft- -- 2. AdditionAto required setback would require: a. Substantial filling in a shoreland area. b. Removal of several trees. c. An irregular design of building not readily adaptable to to proposed use. The present building has been in exist- ance for 50 plus years and the road right-of-way has fluc- tuated back and forth and has been very difficult to deter- mine. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #626. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 6 feet from required setback from waterline as per finding of fact: 1. Existing residence is located too close to waterline to pro- vide room for a porch addition. + 2. Other residences in the area have porches on lake side of residence and are located as close or closer than the addition proposed. a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. e. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #627. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 11 feet from required setback from normal high waterline as per finding of fact: 1. Changing of Lake Road to a county highway now requires a 42 foot setback from the right-of-way instead of a 30 foot setback on a town road. The irregular shape of the lot with shoreland on two sides in conjunction with the new road setback restricts the permitted buildin' area to a size which would not be compatible with the general area or with a reasonable design. Only the NW 1/4 corner of house would pro- ject into shoreland area. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible ILOwithout injustice to applicant. c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest.