Laserfiche WebLink
B.O.A./Minutes/12/22/88 <br /> Page 7 <br /> Motion carried - 3-0 Rendall, absent. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. The project as planned with specified conditions; will not result in <br /> substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, <br /> impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. <br /> #1784. Nye - Dunn. <br /> Rendall/Jones to deny requested sideyard, lot width and lot area variances. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Encroachment was an add on by applicant that was constructed across common <br /> lot line. <br /> 2. Property was 2 existing platted lots however addition negated separate <br /> saleability without variances. <br /> 3. Applicant now wishes to sell both lots to perspective buyers. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried - 3-1 Quackenbush, no. <br /> #1745. Vincent - Dunn. <br /> Quackenbush/Jones to grant request for reconsideration of height variance to <br /> allow an additional height variance of 0.08 feet added to residential garage <br /> (Variance #1745 granted - 8/25/88) . <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 4110 1. Total height is measured to roof "cap" removal of "cap" - layered shingles <br /> - would put structure within compliance. <br /> 2. Additional height poses no obstruction to neighbors or public safety. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #1756. Schultz & Hunt - Rutland. <br /> Quackenbush/Kruschke to grant request for reconsideration of setback from road <br /> to allow addition to existing residence to be 9.25 feet less than required 30 ' <br /> minimum. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Variance #1756 granted for 4.25 foot variance on 9/22/88. <br /> 2. Error in measurement was discovered, variance should have been for 9.25 <br /> feet from required setback. <br /> 3. Site plan drawing was correct - numbers inaccurate. <br /> 4. Addition is setback behind existing residence encroachment. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much s possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> 9, ,) <br /> Quackenbush/Rendall to adjourn meeting at 12:05 p.m. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. n„ EC ' iMC !\ <br /> 410, � <br /> Steven H. Reynolds, �, rJAN 1 1 1989 <br /> Recording secretary CUTE FNE <br /> DEC-—faE K <br /> S•,,/ <br /> MINUTES WERE FILED WITH DANE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON <br />