Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> August 28, 1980 <br /> Page 5 <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> :41104 interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #916. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to deny; Town Plan is opposed. <br /> Motion carried 3 to 2. <br /> 1 <br /> ? #917. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 50 feet <br /> 1 from maximum permitted height, subject to the following conditions: <br /> 1. Warning light system for the stack shall be subject to approval <br /> by Dane County Airport and Wisconsin Department of Transportation, <br /> iBureau of Aeronautics. <br /> 2. A schedule of construction shall be submitted to Dane County Air- <br /> port. Said schedule shall specifically include use of constructior <br /> t <br /> l'l equipment which will extend above 208' above grade level. <br /> i FINDING OF FACT: <br /> v <br /> 1. Increased stack height is required to comply with Department of <br /> Natural Resources regulations because alternate remedies are not <br /> y feasible, ie: availability of low sulfur coal is not a <br /> low sulfur gas or oil may be guarantee; <br /> y prohibited in the future; studies <br /> , have shown that air scrubbers are not conceivable for the Oscar <br /> � Mayer boilers; severely limiting plant operation would curtail <br /> s possible future expansion. <br /> 2. Proposed stack would not adversely affect the aeronautical opera- <br /> -; <br /> 1 tions at the airport. <br /> tCONCLUSION: <br /> or <br /> a. Hardship is caused by Department of Natural Resources air stan- <br /> dards and height restriction provisions of the County Ordinance. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br />/ interest. <br />• c. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> I #918. Motion by Kruschke, second by Voges to grant a variance of 10 feet <br /> • from reuqired setback from West Ridge Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing barn was built with a variance granted in 1965. <br /> 2. Proposed addition will not be closer to the road. <br /> 3. Existing feed lots prevent location farther from road. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #919. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to uphold the Zoning <br /> Administrator's interpretation. <br /> FINDING OF FACT & CONCLUSION: <br /> Finding of Fact: Inspection by the Board of Adjustment disclosed that: <br /> 1. The walls in question are structurally part of the building walls <br /> extended out and connected to the roof overhang. <br />