1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES/8/23/90 Page 5 FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Applicant added on to residence now original residence incapable of supporting second story. 2) . Applicant will have a new residence built in 2 halves. 3) . Deck addition will encroach, less than a foot nearer to adjoining property. CONCLUSION: 1) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. Motion carried - 4-0. #2024. Appeal by Cave of the Mounds, Inc. for a variance from required maximum size of directory sign as provided by Section 10.72 to permit relocation and enlarge displaced sign at Northwest corner USH 18-151 and Erb Road in the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 - Section 14, Town of Springdale. IN FAVOR: T. Bandow OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: --- Quackenbush/Rendall to grant, with conditions, variance of 54 square feet from maximum allowable square footage of directory signs. CONDITION: 1) . Prior to receipt of County permit approvals from Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Town Board are required. - FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The State allows such signs 150 square foot maximum. 2) . Sign is classified as historical or natural interest by State. 3) . Similar variances have been granted. 4) . Sign is to be relocated due to displacement by USH 18/151 construction. CONCLUSION: 1) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. Motion carried - 4-0. #2025. Appeal by Lelah Matz for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10.17 (1) to permit deck addition to residence and accessory building as constructed at 8785 STH 19 in the NW 1/4 NE 1/4 - Section 9, Town of Berry. IN FAVOR: H. Hoffman OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: --- Rendall/Quackenbush to hold in abeyance until November Hearing the mobile home/storage building setback issue. Motion carried - 4-0. Rendall/Quackenbush to deny setback variance for deck addition to residence. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Deck constructed without permit. 2) . Deck constructed too hear highway right-of-way. 3) . Applicant was not represented regarding deck issue. CONCLUSION: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried - 4-0.