Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> April 15, 1977 <br /> Pg. 2 <br /> #564. Appeal by Colleen Bindley for a variance from required setback <br /> from Deerpath Road as provided by Section 10.17 (5) Dane County Zoning <br /> Ordinance. Variance is necessary to permit construction of a resi- <br /> dence on Lot #1, Blk. #2, Fox Bluff Section 5, (T7N-R9E) Town of <br /> Westport. <br /> IN FAVOR: C. Bindiey;Glen Hettinger Architect. OPPOSED: J. M. <br /> Mackey; Shelly Post; June Mackey; Wanda Bincer; Katherin Keith. <br /> TOWN BOARD: Not present. <br /> 1 #565. Appeal by Carl Ralston for a variance from required setback <br /> from Washington Street (STH -92) as provided by Section 10.17 (1) <br /> Dane County Zoning Ordinance. Variance is necessary to permit con- <br /> struction of a garage on Lot #5 and SW 1/2 Lot #6, Block #3, Mount <br /> Vernon, Town of Springdale. <br /> IN FAVOR: C. Ralston OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD: Not present <br /> Wisconsin State Highway; no communication. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #559. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 17 feet <br /> from required sethack from the centerline of CTH MN as per finding of <br /> fact. <br /> 1. Existing farm yard buildings and service areas make it impossible <br /> to build otherwise. <br /> 2. No objection expressed by Dane County Highway. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> . A. Proven case of unnecessary hardhship. <br /> B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> D. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #560. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 17 feet <br /> from required setback from the centerline of High View Road as per <br /> finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing farm buildings and services make it impossible to build <br /> otherwise without utilizing good agricultural land. <br /> 2. No objection expressed by Town Board. <br /> 3. Building will not be closer to road than the existing building. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship, <br /> B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> D. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br />