1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes August 25, 1983 Page 4 CONCLUSION: a) . proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. Motion carried. #1173. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 18 feet from the required setback from normal high waterline. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Existing building, since 1932, is non-conforming as to setback from water. 2) . Proposed addition will be located farther back from the water. 3) . Existing residences in the area are closer to the lake. CONCLUSION: a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. c) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #1174. Motion by Harvey, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 9 feet from the required setback from USH 12-14-18 ( Beltline Highway) subject to the condition that: The addition shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: (10, 1) . Highway on this area is exceptionally wide, each improvement has encroached further into the adjacent properties, Thus restricting permitted building area. 2) . Hansen Advertising building to the West was permitted under City of Madison Extraterritorial zoning to be approximately 6 feet from the highway right-of-way. CONCLUSION: a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is necessary to provide right ejoyed by others. c) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #1175. Motion by Harvey, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 7 feet fron required setback from Quam Drive and a variance of 155 square feet from maxi- mum permitted total area for accessory buildings subject to the conditions: 1. The building may not be utilized for residential purposes and 2. that the building shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improve- ment requires additional right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Building which was substantially renovated did exist prior to the Zoning Ordinance. 2) . Other accessory buildings in the area are as close, or closer, to the road. Similar square foot area situtations also exist in the neighbor- hood. CONCLUSION: lk 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. Motion carried.