|
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 MINUTES 1/25/96 <br /> Page 5 <br /> APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS: <br /> #2668 . Schuster - Albion - 9/28/95 P.H. <br /> IN FAVOR: D. Schuster OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: <br /> Town Board <br /> GASKILL/KLOPP to grant variance of 4 feet from required <br /> right sideyard to permit addition to existing residence. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Proposed addition is to be expanding existing bedroom <br /> by 80± square feet. <br /> 2) . Addition will not extend towards lot line as near as <br /> existing residence sidewall . <br /> 3) . Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming <br /> residences with numerous variances being granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as <br /> possible without injustice to applicant. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0 . <br /> #2696. Mills St. Partners - Westport - 12/28/95 P.H. <br /> No appearances: COMMUNICATION: Town Board <br /> SAYLES/GASKILL to deny requested variance from setback to <br /> normal high watermark for new residence construction. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Applicant has vacant lake lot and wishes to construct <br /> single family residence. <br /> 2) . Reduced average setback to normal high watermark is <br /> 46. 6 feet. <br /> 3) . Lot has portion covered by indian mound and must <br /> maintain additional setback. <br /> 4) . Applicant was to seek design change or alternatives to <br /> variance and return. <br /> 5) . Town Board has recommended denial . <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried 4- <br /> 0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.