Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> Minutes - July 28, 1983 <br /> Page 3 <br /> (Or <br /> 2) . Feasible addition/alteration could not be made without a variance. <br /> 3) . Variance permitting "in-line" construction will not cause any <br /> change in existing shoreland regulations. . <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> 4. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1163. Motion by Harvey, seconded by Purcell to grant a variance of 10 feet, <br /> more or less, from required rear yard and 4 feet, more or less, from re- <br /> quired right side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Garage was located in rear yard as per residence foundation and not <br /> realizing the deck was considered as part of the residence. <br /> 2) . Deck would have to be removed to provide compliance for garage. <br /> An, at grade, patio would be permitted in place of deck. <br /> 3) . The same building located 12 feet farther back could be 4 feet <br /> from rear or side lot line. <br /> 4) . Section 10.16 (6) (b) 3. - Dane County Zoning Ordinance permits <br /> decks to encroach 12 feet into a rear yard. This causes a con- <br /> fusing situation with regard to determination of rear yard and <br /> -location of accessory buildings. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and not clearly defined thus causing <br /> the unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1164. Motion by Kruschke, seconded by Purcell to grant the permit subject <br /> to the following conditions: <br /> 1. All spoils shall be spread and leveled. <br /> 2. Banks of new ditches shall be seeded with fast growing grasses and <br /> mulched to prevent siltation or erosion. <br /> 3. The applicant shall request inspection by the Dane County Zoning <br /> Department upon completion of the project. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . The ditching is necessary to improve drainage for cropland. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Digging of new ditch is necessary to provide proper drainage <br /> of existing field. <br /> 2. The project as planned with specified conditions; will not re- <br /> sult in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, <br /> sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and <br /> r .= healthful conditions. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> .v.,:.,.>,;:5:--.=..., ..:.o. —tc:,F�Y Kam.: .H+�...._......,L ' .....a�....,n .:.,A..e,r---r--:-;.e._. - -"=•-=•:i�.,. ...:.vi,+zr .,,..G.�ff <br />