|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 11:20:27 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 11:16:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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 /> December 17, 1981 <br /> Page 2 <br /> ild #1043. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to deny, FINDING OF FACT, <br /> testimony disclosed; <br /> 1. Addition was designed to provide what the Danner's wanted. <br /> 2. Re-design to comply with required side yard not feasible because <br /> it would not provide what is desired. <br /> 3. The same addition could comply, location-wise, on the opposite <br /> side of the residence but would be aesthetically pleasing it <br /> would be off of the kitchen and dining area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. The Board may not consider, aesthetics, desires or conveniences <br /> as an unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. It appears that re-location or re-design of the addition could <br /> be accomplished to provide side yard compliance. <br /> 3. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1002. Request for permission to re-apply for variance. The Board <br /> reviewed the request and information submitted to the Board by the State <br /> Highway Department. Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to deny: <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> CV 1. Proposed highway improvement will not change the location of the <br /> right-of-way line adjacent to the Laufenberg property. <br /> 2. Setback is required from the center of the road right-of-way or <br /> from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater. Therefore, <br /> the proposed re-location of pavement will not affect the setback <br /> encroachment. <br /> 3. Other facts of the case remain unchanged. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proposed highway improvement is irrelevant. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to adjourn meeting. Meeting ad- <br /> joined at 8:30 p.m. <br /> R " <br /> Phyllis Schwahn, ��� a <br /> Secretary <br /> DEC 21 1981 <br /> Minutes filed with Dane County Clerk's Office on <br /> one County <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.