|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1995
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2016 9:51:44 AM
Creation date
6/16/2016 9:51:44 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
C <br /> BOA - Minutes/10/26/95 <br /> Page 7 <br /> CONDITION: <br /> 1) . Foundation excavation does not commence until April 1, <br /> 1996. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Project primarily is second story over existing <br /> residence . <br /> 2) . 1st Floor kitchen expansion involves a single 4" x 4" <br /> post support foundation. <br /> 3) . Existing residence built prior to shoreland setback <br /> requirement . <br /> 4) . Applicant had previous Variance #2538 from June 23, <br /> 1994 to allow 1st floor addition - which was never built . <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> (mr, 1) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest . <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as <br /> possible without injustice to applicant. Motion carried - <br /> 4-0. <br /> APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS: <br /> #2667 - Gerstner - Deerfield - 9/28/95 P.H. <br /> IN FAVOR: R. Gerstner <br /> GASKILL/SAYLES to grant variance of 19 feet from required <br /> setbak to right-of-way of unnamed alley also, to grant <br /> Variance of 6 feet from required right-of-way sideyard to <br /> permit construction of swimpool as per revised request. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Applicant has deleted garage and relocated proposed <br /> pool to behind residence. <br /> 2) . Revised pool location reserves alternate septic area. <br /> 3) . Applicant has lot bound by roads of 3 sides . <br /> 4) . Applicant has received previous variance for porch <br /> addition. <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 . Motion carried - 4-0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.