Laserfiche WebLink
HOARD O1 At)JtlS'I'Mi<N'I' - Minul:rs <br /> April 28, 1083 <br /> Page 4 <br /> C.) <br /> FINDING OF FACT; <br /> - _1) . Location of the addition is pre-determined by the location of the <br /> existing barn. <br /> 2) . Addition cannot be moved farther back from road because of existing <br /> feed lot. Feed bunks arc. placed at the sides of building and <br /> • have to be serviced by 10 foot doors at each end. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1148. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 16 feet from <br /> required setback from Schaller Road; CONDITION: The silo shall be removed at <br /> the owners expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Proposed location is pre-determined by the location of the existing <br /> barn. <br /> 2) . Proposed silo is 20 feet farther back from road than the front of the <br /> barn. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> .2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> (iv #1129. Freeman - Section 6, So. Westport Request from Mr. Freeman 's architec ; <br /> existing residence does not adapt to proposed remodeling. Variance granted <br /> is tied into renovation and expansion of "existing" residence. Applicant <br /> requests review to permit re-building. • <br /> Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahn to delete the word "existing" from the <br /> language of the variance; motion carried. <br /> 41092. Bakke/Kau - Madison. Recuest for permission to re-submit application <br /> • for variance within one year of denial; evidence was presented by Attorney <br /> representing Mr. Kau. Motion by Purcell, second by Harvey to approve. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1141. Appeal by Drover's Woods Homeowner's Association of the Zoning <br /> Administrator's Interpretation regarding continued use of non-conforming <br /> mineral extraction sites. <br /> The Board received Dane County Corporation Counsel's written opinion. <br /> Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to sustain the interpretation of the <br /> Acting Zoning Administrator. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Zoning Ordinance Amendment #1163, effective April 16, 1968 provided <br /> as follows: All existing mineral extraction operations shall be <br /> deemed non-conforming uses and may be continued providing that they <br /> have been worked prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance and <br /> they have been registered with the County Zoning Supervisor within <br /> i.i.,; <br /> one Year of the date of adoption of this ordinance. <br />