1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes September 25, 1980 Page 2 4/10 #934. Appeal by Larry Van Der Leest and Seagraves for a variance from:.; required rear yard as provided by Section 10.06 (8) (a) . Variance is necessary to permit deck, as constructed, for residence by 5841 Timber Ridge Trail. Lot #91, 1st Addition to Seminole Forest, Section 8, Town of Fitchburg. IN FAVOR: Dave Schutz, builder OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None #935. Appeal by James Hughes for variances from required setback from road and rear yard as provided by Section 10.17 (2) and 10.12 (7) (a) . Variances are necessary to permit addition to the residence at 4250 C.T.H. "AB" part NE 1/4 NE 1/4 - Section 14, Town of Blooming Grove. IN FAVOR: Sherry Hughes OPPOSED: None TOWN BOARD: William Voges, Supervisor, no opinion COMMUNICATION: Letter, Dane County Highway, no objection. #936. Appeal by Gordon A. Starks for a variance from required side yard as provided by Section 10.16 (5) (b) . Variance is necessary to permit re building of porch on residence at 3110 Sunnyside Drive, SE 1/2 Lot #8, Block #1, Monson's Park, Section 18, Town of Pleasant Springs. IN FAVOR: G. Starks, submitted petition from neighbors in favor. OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None 409 #937. Appeal by Ness 0. Thornbloom for a variance from required side yar4 as provided by Section 10.07 (7) (a) . Variance is necessary to permit an entry stoop for residence at 2699 Tower Road, part SE 1/4 SE 1/4 - Section 8, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: N. Thornbloom OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter, town board, in favor. #940. Appeal by John Laufenberg for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10.17 (3) . Variance is necessary to re- build barn at 6917 Woodland Drive, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 - Section 10, Town of Springfield. IN FAVOR: J. Laufenberg OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter, town board in favor. The public hearing was closed. #928. Motion by Schwahn, second by Voges to grant a variance of 8 feet from required rear yard and setback from normal high waterline. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Existing residence is non-conforming as to location and a variance would be required for any addition to the rear 1/2 of house. Con- versely, a second story addition could only be constructed on the front 1/2 of house without a variance. CONCLUSION: +! a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. c. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried.