|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 3:55:31 PM
Creation date
5/6/2016 3:55:24 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DANE COUNTY <br /> C <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> COMMITTEE HELD ON October 1; 1985 <br /> The following members were present: Voges, Schwahn, Krushcke. <br /> ALSO: Reynolds. <br /> Meeting called to order by Chairman Voges at 9:00 a.m. in Room._ #118-B <br /> City-County Building to provide decisions from September 26, 1985 public <br /> hearing. <br /> MINUTES: Motion Scwhahn/Kruschke to approve minutes of August 22,1985 & <br /> September 24, 1985. <br /> #1392: Pearson-Dunn. <br /> Schwahn/Kruschke to deny variance from setback from road and sideyard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). There is sufficient area to locate accessory building without need for <br /> variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Unnecessary hardship-was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. 3-0. <br /> #1393: Hermanson-Dunn. <br /> Kruschke/Schwahn to hold in abeyance pending resolution of easement issue with <br /> town. Abeyance not to exceed 60 day time limit. <br /> Motion carried. 3-0. <br /> #1394: Dresen-Springfield. <br /> Schwahn/Kruschke to allow applicant to withdraw due to re-design of structure <br /> to eliminate need for variance. <br /> #1395: Kartman - Blooming Grove. <br /> Schwahn/Kruschke to grant variance of 4 more or less feet from setback CTH AB <br /> and 2.5 more or less feet to Karmichael Court Addition not to extend closer to <br /> right-of-ways than existing residence. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Existing residence is already within required setbacks. <br /> 2) . Re-design will fill applicants needs and reduce requested variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried. 3-0. <br /> L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.