1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/Minutes Page 3 - 10/23/86 CONDITIONS: 1) . The filled and/or graded and disturbed areas shall be sodded or seeded with fast growing grasses and mulched to prevent siltation or erosion. 2) . The applicant shall request inspection by the Dane County Zoning Department upon completion of the project. CONCLUSION: 1) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried - 4-0. #1497. Madison Retriever Club - Dunn. Quackenbush/Kruschke to grant special exception permit with conditions to permit fill and grade within 300 feet of Hook Lake. CONDITIONS: 1) . Area of fill limited to the 26' x 150' proposed. 2) . Height of fill not to exceed 2 foot maximum above existing water level. 3) . The applicant shall request inspection by the Dane County Zoning Department upon completion of the project. 4) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried - 4-0. #1498. Kast - Burke. Quackenbush/Kruschke to hold in abeyance pending further consideration requested variance from maximum square footage of accessory buildings. Motion carried - 4-0. #1499. Haag - Berry. Miller/Kruschke to grant variance of 12 feet more or less from required centerline setback of STH 19 to allow existing building as constructed. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Zoning permit was issued on basis of site plan submitted by applicant which showed building in a complying location. 2) . First inspection was not requested and second inspection did not catch the setback violation. Certificate of Compliance was issued in error. 3) . Building is in an area of numerous nonconforming setbacks and is located farther back from the road than most other buildings. 4) . Setback variances have been issued in this area including the adjacent property on which the building is closer to the road. CONCLUSION: 1) . Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3) . - Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried - 4-0.