1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes July 24, 1980 Page 3 • fir c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #904. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 46 spaces from required parking subject. to recording of a deed restriction providing that the following described parcel shall be utilized solely for parking for the Badger Bowl and associated businesses. A parcel of land being part of Lot #5, Block 1, W. H. Jacobs and E. S. Barker's subdivision, located in the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 36, T7N, R9E, City of Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin, to-wit: Commencing at the West quarter corner of said Section 36; thence S 89° 34' 00" E, 1770.14 feet; thence N 00° 26' 00" E, 32.95 feet; thence N 02° 12 ' 49" E, 333.30 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 57° 18' 53" W, 82. :7 feet; thence N 00° 24' 48" E, 106.25 feet; thence S 89° 35' 12" E, 295.58 feet; thence S 00° 05'19" W, 61.00 feet; thence N 89° 35' 12" W, 226.50 feet to the point of beginning. Also described as: Parcel B, Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc. Mortgage Survey #S-8030-1 FINDING OF FACT: 1. Required parking cannot be provided on applicants property under County jurisdiction because of uses already established. Said parking can be provided on property owned by the applicant but located within the city limits of Madison. 2. Deed restriction will protect the intent of the County Zoning Ordi nance. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible withou' injustice to applicant. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. Motion carried. #905. Motion by Purcell, second by Voges to grant a variance of 7 feet from the required setback from Rome Corners Road. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Proposed building will replace two other existing buildings and will be farther from the road than the one existing building. 2. Building cannot be located farther from the road than proposed because of a waterway behind the building. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- out injustice to applicant. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. Motion carried.