1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes May 26, 1983 Page 2 • Art- Public hearing was closed. #1149. Motion by Harvey, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 23.3 feet, more or less, from the required setback from USH 51. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Existing building is non-conforming as to setback. 2. Addition is second story storage room and roof alteration which will not cause further encroachment. 3. Addition/alteration could not be permitted without the variance. CONCLUSION: 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . • Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #1150. Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to grant the permit subject to the following conditions: FINDING OF FACT: 1. Project is necessary to improve drainage of cropland. 2. A.S.C.S. is involved in part of the project. CONCLUSION: 1) . Dredging and clean-out of ditches and digging of new ditches is necessary to provide proper drainage of existing field. IF Ihr 2) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not re- sult in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried. #1151. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of .94 feet from required setback from Warner Lane on North side of property .61 feet from required setback from Warner Lane on East side of property; grant:d Condition: Future surveys or plats in this area shall include a building setback line running parallel to and 30 feet distance from Warner Lane right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1. the concensus of opinion of the Board was that there was no new evi- dence presented which would prove an unnecessary hardship for the builder Robert Kau, or the owners Larry or Jean Bakke. The builder by his actions, inadvertant or otherwise, caused a self-imposed hardship which does not constitute a valid reason for the granting of a variance. The owners who employed the builder must also accept responsibility for the actions of the builder. Considering only there aspects the variance would again have been denied. 2. The Board reviewed and evaluated the effects of granting or denial of the variance in the perspective of adjoining property owners, future development of the area, and public interest. Compliance by relocation of Warner Lane would cause other existing residences to become non-conforming or more non-conforming as to setback. Compli- ance by narrowing Warner Lane to provide the required setback would cause the street to be less than 66 feet in width which would cause problems for future land divisions with regard to required public access provisions of the Dane County Subdivision Ordinance. The