1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes August 28, 1980 Page 6 2. The roof overhang is structurally supported to the ground by said walls. 3. Design, function or structural value are not included in the ordinance as a basis for determination of structural encroachment into yards or setback areas. 4. The walls and roof overhang do not correspond with allowable situa tions in conventional construction. The ordinance does not permit roof overhang, which is supported to the ground, to encroach into a required yard or setback, nor, does it provide for determination of building line by other than Section 10.01 (9) . 5. Twin Oaks Court and Partridge Hill Drive are roads within a platte. r subdivision recorded on May 24, 1979 and are thereby classified as Class E toads for purpose of setback determination. CONCLUSION: I. a. Section 10.01 (9) - Dane County Zoning Ordinance provides that the building line is the point at which walls etc. meet the ground. Therefore, as per finding of fact #1 & 2, it is deter- mined that the building line of this structure is where the outermost points of the walls in question meet the ground. b. Section 10.16 (6a) (b) - provides that roof overhangs, etc. , that are not supported to the ground may extend into any re- quired yard by not more than three feet. The roof overhang, as per finding of fact #2, does not qualify under this excep- tion because it is supported to the ground. c. The complete structure, with building line determined as per a. above, is subject to setback regulation as provided by Sec- + tion 10.05 (6) and 10.17 (5) (b) ; setback is a minimum of 30 feet from the right-of-way or front lot line. Motion carried unanimously. #920. Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahn to deny. FINDING OF FACT: ! 1. Building design is now available which will accomodate the 10 foot high door and still comply with Zoning Ordinance height restric- tions. CONCLUSION: a. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #921. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 10 feet from required setback from Jordan Drive and to deny requested vari- ance from right side yard. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Lot slopes downward toward lake - required setback would require fill to maintain level drive to prevent snow, ice and drainage problems. 2. Similar variance has been granted for others in this area. 4 3. Applicant stated that side yard variance was not necessary. CONCLUSION: 1 -5X a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. Motion carried.