1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes July 22, 1982 Page 2 limmure #1087. Appeal by Robin J. Irwin for a variance from required sideyard and setback from road as provided by Section 10.123 (8) (a) and 10.17 (2) (b) to permit addition to residence at 3895 C.T.H. "J", NW 1/4 SW 1/4 - Section 26, Town of Cross Plains. IN FAVOR: R. Irwin, Attorney D. Lageroos OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter; Dane County Highway, No objection. #1088. Appeal by Don Wheeler for a variance from required side yard and 6 setback from road as provided by Section 10.07 (7) and 10.17 (5) to permit additions to residence and garage at 3118 Shadyside Drive, Lot #2, Vea Park, Section 30, Town of Pleasant Springs. IN FAVOR: D. Wheeler, Architect R. Meier OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None #1089. Appeal by Stanley and Shirley Troy for a variance from required set- back from front property line as provided by Section 10.17 (5) to permit addition to residence at 1728 Oakview Drive, Lots 29 and 30 - Oak Knoll, Section 32, Town of Pleasant Springs. IN FAVOR: Shirley Troy OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None The public hearing was closed. #1064. Motion by Harvey, second by Purcell to grant the height variances as per the plan submitted. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Transmission line has to be located as proposed to provide as direct a route as is possible while avoiding critical environmental areas. 2) . Proposed height of poles is required to provide line clearance above highways with a minimal number of poles as requested by the Traffic Division, State Highway to alleviate unnecessary traffic hazard, interference, distraction, etc. 3) . Approval has been obtained from the F.A.A. , State Bureau of Aeronautic- and Dane County Regional Airport. CONCLUSION: 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public intere•t. Motion carried. #1084. Motion by Purcell, second by Harvey to grant a variance of 8 feet, more or less, from required setback from S.T.H. 138 with the condition that the porch addition shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improvement-requires additional right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The existing residence is non-conforming as to setback, porch cannot -- be enlarged without a variance.. 2) . The porch as exists is only 6 feet, the additional 4 feet would pro- - ....vide better utilization of the space. CONCLUSION: - 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance preserves the -zoning ordinance as much as possible without - injustice to applicant. 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. . •