|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1982
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 11:09:17 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 11:04:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> September 23, 1982 <br /> Page 2 <br /> #1100. Appeal by Badger Blue Print, Inc. for a variance from required <br /> side yard as provided by Section 10.13 (6) and 10.14 (6) to permit An <br /> addition to building at 810 W. Badger Road - SE 1/4 NW 1/4 - Section 35, <br /> Town of Madison. <br /> IN FAVOR: J. Gruenhagen OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter; <br /> Madison Town Board in favor. <br /> #1101. Appeal by George and Mary Patrinos from the interpretation of the <br /> Dane County Zoning Administrator pertaining to extensive repair of a non- <br /> conforming building and evaluation of the cost of the repair as provided <br /> by Section 10.21 (1) and 10.23 (2) for a building at 3430 Quam Drive - <br /> Part Lots 21 and 22, Addition to Ole J. Quam's Park - Section 25, Town <br /> of Dunn. <br /> IN FAVOR: Attorney N. Grapsas, representing Patrinos OPPOSED: None <br /> The Board of Adjustment had subpoened as a witness Mr. James Martin an <br /> area residence. Mr. Martin testified that 1) . the old existing building <br /> had been removed except for some of the foundation posts. 2) . the build- <br /> ing was "squared off" and enlarged. 3) . approximate time was August, <br /> September, 1981. <br /> L. J. Enger, Zoning Administrator testified as to intent and interpreta- <br /> tion of the Zoning Ordinance: <br /> State Statute speaks only to trade and industry in reference to non- <br /> conforming use. Residential use cannot be construed to be a trade or <br /> industry, is not protected by statute and is, therefore, left to the <br /> discretion of the county. - <br /> Our interpretation, custom and practice has been that whenever a building <br /> is torn down it no longer exists and any re-building of a new structure <br /> must comply with use and locational requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> No case law could be found which pertains to valuation of repairs for <br /> non-conforming use buildings. Dane County Zoning Ordinance provides that <br /> the cost of alteration, restoration or repair, of a non-conforming use <br /> building, shall not during the life of the building exceed 50% of the <br /> assessed valuation of the building, such valuation being that in effect <br /> for the year in which such use became non-conforming. The use in this <br /> case became non-conforming in May of 1942. <br /> The 1942 Dunn tax assessment rolls disclose a land value of $13,500 and <br /> improvements of $2,000. Notarized statements from residents in the area <br /> verify that both of the residences were on the property at that time. <br /> Prorating the assessed valuation by square foot area of the buildings <br /> as per a 1959 survey of the property, which was done by Dave Cheney, <br /> provides the result of a value of $608.00 for the building in question. <br /> Using the 198,1 to 1942 interpolated cost of repair of $984.10 as proposed <br /> $.11, by Attorney Grapsas, the repairs do exceed 50% of the assessed value <br /> of the building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.