Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 <br /> BOA - Minutes/8/26/93 <br /> 1) . Project is over existing foundation and has no further <br /> encroachment toward setback. <br /> 2) . Applicant, in fact, proposes reducing amount of roof overhang <br /> down from 3 feet, as exists, to 2 feet. <br /> 3) . Existing flat roof is in need of repair and has to be removed <br /> due to water damage. <br /> 4) . Property is a corner lot encumbered by 2 required road <br /> setbacks and only 40 feet in width. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br /> #2426. Appeal by LaVerne and Sue Sutter for a variance from <br /> required setback from road as provided by Section 10. 17 (2) to <br /> permit proposed addition to existing residence at 3751 CTH F in the <br /> NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section - 29, Town of Vermont. <br /> Co, IN FAVOR: L. Sutter OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Environmental <br /> Health Department, Dane County Highway <br /> MPS/LYNCH to grant, with conditions, variance of 12 more or less <br /> feet from required setback to CTH F to permit addition to existing <br /> single family residence as proposed. <br /> CONDITIONS: <br /> 1) . That any new construction be 5 feet or further behind existing <br /> building line of original residence. <br /> 2) . The addition shall be removed at the owners expense if future <br /> road improvement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> 3) . That prior to obtaining zoning permit that Dane County <br /> Environmental Health Department approve project. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Appeal is a re-apply of previous approval (#2235 - 3/26/92) to <br /> which permit acquistion was not timely. <br /> 2) . Original farm house around 100 years old and additions setback <br /> further from road than existing. <br /> 3) . Proposed location sets atop moderate hill thereby causing no <br /> highway obstruction. <br /> 4) . Applicant requested 12 more or less foot variance while County <br /> Highway contends should be 22 more or less feet request. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br /> 2427. Appeal by George and Norma Maddrell for a Special Exception <br />