|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 10:54:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
HOARD OP A1)J11S'PMI?N'I' - Minutes <br /> July 2(,, .1'1144 <br /> Page 3 <br /> CI) ('I)N('I,I C1 i ON: <br /> 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. Unanimously. <br /> #1275. Schwahn/Kruschke deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1.1. Field inspection disclosed that there were no topographical, or <br /> other hardship that would prevent the pool from being .located <br /> in compliance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. Unanimously. <br /> #1276. Miller/Harvey grant a variance of 3.16 acres from required area for <br /> keeping of-livestock (horses) . <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Variance requested because of a technicality. Applicants residence <br /> and barn are located in Iowa County but Lot #3, located in Dane <br /> County is rented for pasture. Lot #3 complies with required acreag: <br /> for livestock but horses must cross ("use") Lot #A (on map) to get <br /> to Lot #3. Lot #A is less than 5 acres and "use" for livestock is <br /> not permitted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship.- <br /> 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. Unanimously. <br /> #1277. Schwahn/Miller grant the variance from required maximum height; con- <br /> dition height of sign may not exceed m.s.l. elevation of the Motel "6" sign. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Similar variances have been granted in this area. <br /> 2. Height is necessary to provide visibility for freeway traffic. <br /> Maximum permitted height would not be effective. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. Unanimously. <br /> #1278. Harvey/Kruschke amend to include special exception permit and to <br /> grant a variance of 6 feet from maximum permitted height subject to the <br /> following conditions and instructions: <br /> 1. Screened area may not be enclosed or used for residential purposes. <br /> 2. The filled and/or graded and disturbed areas shall be sodded or seeded <br /> with fast growing grasses and mulched to prevent siltation or erosion. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Steep slope of bank does not permit a beach or level area without ex <br /> tens.ive excavation and retaining walla. Residences not on the slope <br /> do have level <br /> 2. Proposed construction would not require major excavation and re- <br /> taining walls and would be more unobtrusive while still providing <br /> a level area by the boat dock. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.