Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> November 18, 1982 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 3) . Variance would be required for any addition on the lake side even <br /> if it was in-line with the residence. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> b) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> c) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1116. Motion by Kruschke, second by Harvey to grant the Special Exception <br /> Permit with the following conditions: <br /> 1) . Spoils stockpiled for dewatering shall be located or mulched so as to <br /> prevent siltation or erosion into the creek. <br /> 2) . The filled and/or graded and distrubed areas shall be sodded or seeded <br /> with fast growing grasses and mulched to prevent siltation or erosion. <br /> 3) . The applicant shall request inspection by the Dane County Zoning Depart- <br /> ment upon completion of the project. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not re- <br /> sult in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, <br /> (119 sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and <br /> healthful conditions. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1117. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Arguments of "practical difficulty, unreasonable prevention of use, <br /> unnecessary burdensome", were expressed. <br /> 2) . Argument; "no feasible use of land" was submitted pertaining to the <br /> required 10 foot side yard. <br /> 3) . Argument; the engineering integrity of building and public health and <br /> safety would be affected if variance were denied. <br /> 4) . Argument; Amendment to zoning ordinance requiring 10 foot side yard <br /> created the hardship. <br /> 4) . Argument; this appeal differs in basics from the appeal presented in <br /> 1981 because adjacent property to the South as been purchased by a <br /> firm which has not expressed an objection to the variance as did the <br /> former owner. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Arguments ref. F.O.F. #1 above, do not constitute unnecessary <br /> hardship. <br /> b) . Feasible use of a property must consider the whole property and <br /> not only a required open space. The property is now being uti- <br /> lized by the plant facility of Dane County Dairy. Denial of <br /> the side yard variance will not deny all feasible use of the pro- <br /> p41erty. <br />