1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HC)APD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minute:; February 26, 1981 Page 2 (Fs #968. Appeal by Erwin W. Borter for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10. 17 (2) to permit an addition to a barn at 707-709 C.T.H. BB, S1; 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 10, Town of Deerfield. IN FAVOR: E. Sorter OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Telephone call from Bob Reige, Town Clerk, Town Board has no objection to variance , letter to follow. Letter from Dane County Highway - no objection. #969. Appeal by Barrett Real Estate for a variance from maximum permitted time that a real estate office may be maintained on Lot #72, Seminole Forest, 2923 Osmundson Road, Section 8, Town of Fitchburg. IN FAVOR: Gene Barrett; Attorney R. Glesner OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION_ Letter from C. L. Darling in opposition. Letter from Town Board, in favor. The public hearing was closed. #963. Motion by Voges, 2nd by Purcell to grant a variance of 42 feet 6 inches from the required setback from town road. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Barn is located on a 3 rod road utilized by only 2 families. 2. Addition will not be closer to the road than the existing barn. 3. No access will be provided on the road side of the huildinq. 4. Addition is necessary to enclose and protect barn cleaner . 5. Addition is not possible in other location because of barn cleaner location. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. h. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #964. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 1 foot from maximum permitted height. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Height limitation was not noted by Zoning Department personnel when permit was issued and building was constructed as proposed. 2. Height of building was required to allow a door high enough for motor home access. Lowering the roof the required distance would prevent storage of the motor home. 3. The building is constructed at rear of lot. The grade is 6 - 10 feet below the grade of the surrounding residences and is al proxi- matc ly 100' away from the nearest residenc•c . The actual heiaht difference nce oVh`r the maximum e rmi ttc d height' ctoei; to t block , Mnpai or detract from the iairronnding properties. No neighbor c,h etc_d to variance. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much as possil.lc without injustice to applicant. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried.