|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1977
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 10:43:23 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 10:40:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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 18, 1977 <br /> Pg. 2 <br />: 'li <br /> tie <br /> #619. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant variance appeal as pro- <br /> posed as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. Existing house was made more non-conforming by widening of CTH BB. <br /> 2. Structure is worthy of renovation. <br /> 3. No outside additions - will not be made more non-conforming. <br /> 4. No objection from County Highway - Town builders in favor. <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 /> #620. Motion by Voges, second by Dahlk to deny variance appeal as hard- <br /> ship was self-imposed and building was constructed in violation of . <br /> zoning ordinance provisions. Motion carried. <br /> #621. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant a 5 foot variance from <br /> required side yard with condition that the side lot line be determined <br /> and as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Location of residence and septic dry-well prevents any other <br /> location for the proposed garage. <br /> 2. Other residences, garages in the area are as close or closer <br /> to lot lines. <br /> 11:: 3. Objections by neighbor and Town Board were to a one foot dis- <br /> tance to lot line - variance will provide a minimum of 5 feet - <br /> comparable to most others in area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #622. Motion' by Voges second by Dahlk to hold in abeyance as per <br /> Town Board request. Motion carried. <br /> The meeting was adjourned. <br /> Harland Dahlk, <br /> Secretary <br /> f • <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.