|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2016 9:51:44 AM
Creation date
6/16/2016 9:50:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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
BOA 12/19/96 Minutes <br /> Page 3 <br /> L <br /> FINDING OF FACT; <br /> 1). Request is to construct new residence on vacant lot, with the exception of a detached <br /> garage which will remain. <br /> 2). Existing residence is to be razed and new construction wil be in its place. <br /> 3). Fill and grade is for raised patio, window well and retaining walls as per plan <br /> submitted. <br /> 4). Lot is relatively large for a lake lot being 75 ±feet in width and 250 +feet in depth. <br /> 5). Plan modification could accomodate residence without need for variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: VARIANCE <br /> 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> #2790. Appeal by Millie Everson and Carl Zahn for a variance from required average <br /> setback from normal high watermark as provided by Section 11.03(2)to permit deck <br /> addition to existing residence at 4300 Jordan Drive being Lot#18, Block#1, Brictson <br /> Park and adjacent land in the S 1/2 SE 1/4 - Section 8, Town of Dunn. <br /> IN FAVOR: M. Everson OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town <br /> Board. <br /> KLOPP/KAY to grant variance of 2.5 ft. from required setback to Normal High Water <br /> Mark to permit deck as constructed. Motion Failed. 2 -3 [QUACKENBUSH, <br /> GASKILL& SAYLES -No] <br /> GASKILL/SAYLES to deny requested variance. Motion Carried. 3 - 2 [KLOPP/ <br /> KAY-No] <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Applicant had constructed 14 x 24 foot deck addition without required permits. <br /> 2). Applicant testified that deck was a replacement of identically sized structure in same <br /> location. <br /> 3). Encroachment is 2.5 feet of stairs extending from deck. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.