|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1980
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 11:37:19 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 11:37:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> July 24, 1980 <br /> Page 4 <br /> (11" #906. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 10 <br /> feet from required setback from U.S.H. 12. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Proposed construction will not be closer to the road than previously <br /> existed. <br /> 2. Construction, as proposed, will not be a hazard to traffic. <br /> 3. Proposed construction is necessary to utilize existing portion <br /> of building. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #907. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 4 feet <br /> 6 inches granted to permit construction of porch. Variance of side yard <br /> and setback for garage to be held in abeyance to provide time for Mr. <br /> Barrow to check with Dane County Highway Department <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Original residence, constructed by others, was located in violation <br /> of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> 2. Construction of any addition to residence, without a variance, wou..d <br /> be very difficult because of lay-out of building and ordinance <br /> (10 <br /> requirements. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #908. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 12 feet <br /> from required setback from normal high waterline. Deck may not be roofed <br /> or enclosed. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Poured concrete slab patio, flush with ground, cannot be utilized <br /> because of high ground water and drainage problem around house. <br /> 2. Above grade deck must comply with yards and other setbacks as pro- <br /> vided by Zoning Ordinance.unless a variance were granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.