|
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
BOA MINUTES 7/27/95 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Klopp/Sayles to grant variances of 34 feet from required <br /> setback to right-of-way of CTH Q and variance of 40 feet <br /> from maximum distance sign to place advertised to permit on- <br /> premise church sign. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Property has extremely large right-of-way being 125 <br /> feet total width, while 66 feet is standard. <br /> 2) . Zoning permit (ZP 93-1958) issued prior to present sign <br /> ordinance. <br /> 3) . Under previous sign ordinance religious signs <br /> unregulated. <br /> 4) . Non-conforming religious sign exists directly across <br /> County Highway. <br /> 5) . At complying location safety for motoring public could <br /> become an issue. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 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. <br /> Motion carried 5-0. <br /> #2652 . Appeal by SuperAmerica Group for a variance from <br /> maximum number of, area and required location of signs as <br /> provided by Sections 10 . 74 (19) and 10. 83 (1) to permit pylon <br /> sign at 6340 CTH CV in the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 - Section 32, Town <br /> of Windsor. <br /> In Favor: R. Mueller Opposed: --- Communication: <br /> County Highway <br /> Dreps/Gaskill to deny requested variance from number of, <br /> area and requested location of on-premise sign as proposed. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1) . Applicant has alternative location and design to <br /> achieve signage needs . <br /> 2) . Existing oversize pylon sign by variance from previous <br /> sign ordinance. <br /> 3) . Several denials of similar request in immediate area <br /> already exist. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.