1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes September 23, 1982 Page 5 C #1101. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to sustain the interpretation of the zoning administrator. The Board has no jurisdiction as to constitu- tionality of the Zoning Ordinance. #1102. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a 12.92 foot lot width variance for the proposed Lot #2, an 8 foot lot width variance for proposed Lot #1 and a 1,780.83 square foot area variance for Lot #2: FINDING OF FACT: 1. Existing parcels on both sides are smaller than the proposed lots. 2. Division will provide separate lots for existing buildings. CONCLUSION: 1. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. Motion carried. #1103. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Barn yard and wall were just newly constructed and could have been located in a complying location. 2. Theneare no topographical problems. Applicant was advised by Zoning Department that a roofed building was not permitted less than 42 feet . from right-of-way without a variance. 3. ' Applicant is familiar with variance procedure as he has appeared for a variance on other property. 4. Dane County Highway also reviewed proposed plans with the applicant, no mention was made as to the proposed enclosure. Dane County Highway would have objected to a building being constructed at the right-of- way and does now object to the requested variance. CONCLUSION: 1. Self imposed hardship. 2. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #1090. Weston-Dunn; held in abeyance from August 26, 1982 at request of Town Board. Communication, in favor of variance, received from the town. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 14.7 feet, more or less, from required setback from East property line and a variance of 19 feet, more or less, from required setback from the normal high water- line. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Original deck rotted out and had to be replaced. 2. Other residences in the area are as close or closer to the water. CONCLUSION: 1. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 2. - Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #1092. Bakke-Madison; Held in abeyance from August 26, 1982 to allow time for review of possibility of a revised survey to accomplish compliance. Mr. Kau, builder and developer informed Zoning Department on September 23, (10A 1982 that revised survey was impossible; the street would have to be re-