Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MINUTES 9/20/01 <br /> PAGE 3 <br /> #3152. Appeal by David Zulawski for a variance from required maximum height of <br /> boathouse as provided by Sections 11.03(3) and 10.07(3)(b)to allow structural addition <br /> to existing boathouse at 3112 Shadyside Drive being Lot#19, Shadyside Park and <br /> adjacent lands in the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 30, Town of Pleasant Springs. <br /> IN FAVOR: D. Zulawski OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town <br /> Board <br /> SAYLES/KAY to hold request in abeyance until October Hearing to allow applicant to <br /> provide requested information. Motion carried- 5-0 <br /> #3153. Appeal by Steven Schooler for a variance from required setback from road as <br /> provided by Section 10.17(4) and 10.16(4)(f)to permit second story bay window addition <br /> to existing residence at 2824 Waubesa Avenue being Lot#6, 3rd Addition to Waubesa <br /> Beach, Section 8, Town of Dunn, and Appeal of the interpretation by the Zoning <br /> Administrator of Section'10.16(4)(f)Dane County Code of Ordinances as it pertains to <br /> setback of single story bay windows from the road. <br /> FAVOR: S. Schooler OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board <br /> KAY/SAYLES to sustain the applicant's appeal and overturn the Zoning Administrator's <br /> Interpretation of 10.16(4)(f) as it pertains to location of bay windows relative to setback <br /> from roads. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1). 10.16(4)(f)Dane County Code of Ordinances; "for single family residences or duplex <br /> residence buildings, single story bay windows may be constructed in such a manner that <br /> they project three(3) feet or less into the front yard provided that such windows do not <br /> occopy, in the aggregate,more than one-third(1/3) of the front wall of the building"was <br /> interpreted to mean from the 1st floor only. <br /> 2). Applicant constructed a second story, living space addition, above existing attached <br /> garage. <br /> 3). Where there is ambiguity in an ordinance case law often rules in favor of the property <br /> owner. <br /> 4). Applicant withdraws variance request. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> The Dane County Board of Adjustment concluded that the Zoning Administrator's <br /> Interpretation of 10.16(4)(f) was not a reasonable reading of the Ordinance. Motion <br /> carried 5-0. <br /> tiv <br />