1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M.TNUTES June 24,1982 Page 3 ILO and disturbed areas shall be sodded or seeded with fast growing grasses and mulched to prevent siltation and erosion. 2. The applicant shall re- quest inspection by the Dane County Zoning Dept. upon completion of the project. FINDING OF FACT 1. The fill is necessary to provide road access for residence. 2. Fill material utilized is a shale type with no sand or soils which would cause siltation or erosion. 3. Old field access culvert, 2 1/2ft. by 20 ft. , was replaced by a 4 ft. b} 26 ft. culvert and will improve the capacity and prevent washout of the road in the event of flood. CONCLUSION 1. The project as planned,with specified conditions,will not result in sub- stantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, im- pairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried. #1078. Motion by Harvey 2'nd by Purcell to grant a variance of 7 feet, more or less, from the required setback from property line. FINDING OF FACT 1. Existing residence is nonconforming as to setback and addition to the South side, for solar bebefit, would be difficult without the variance. 2. The addition will not be closer to the property line than the existing residence. CONCLUSION 1. Proven case of unecessary hardship 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 3. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #1079. Motion by Purcell 2'nd by Harvey to hold in abeyance for one month to allow time to review desired building location. Motion carried. #1080. Motion by Harvey 2'nd by Purcell to grant the Special Exception Permit as proposed with the following conditions: 1. All spoils shall be spread and leveled. FINDING OF FACT 1. The land has been cropped in the past but now maintains too much mois- ture to be productive. 2. Son is also now working on the farm and additional cropland is needed. 3. Land to the North and East is already tiled . Existing main to the creek will be utilized for the proposed laterals and there will be no need to further disturb the creek. CONCLUSION 1. Proposed project is for a beneficial purpose. 2 The project as planned, with specified conditions, will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried. #1081. Motion by Purcell 2'nd by Harvey to grant a variance of 1.97 feet „ from the required setback from front property line. FINDING OF FACT 1. Garages to both sides of this property are much closer to the front ` property lines. CONCLUSION 1. Variance is necessary to provide a right enjoyed by others.