|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2016 10:26:25 AM
Creation date
6/16/2016 10:26:20 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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 6/28/2001 <br /> PAGE 1 <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> far MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2001 <br /> PRESENT: Long,Klopp,Ross, Sayles and Kay. <br /> ALSO: Reynolds, Everson. <br /> Meeting called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chairman Ross in Room 2-B City-County <br /> Building to hold public hearing as published by Class II Notice. <br /> MINUTES: Kay/Klopp to approve minutes of May 17 and May 24, 2001 as submitted. <br /> Motion carried- 5-0. <br /> JUNE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: <br /> Long/Klopp to take appeal#3134 out of order and delay until the end of the agenda. <br /> Motion carried—5-0. <br /> #3133. Appeal by Daniel &Mary Ramsden for a variance from required setback from <br /> road as provided by Section 10.17(3)to permit deck replacement as constructed at 2710 <br /> Church Street in the W 1/2 SE 1/4 Section 11, Pleasant Springs. <br /> tor IN FAVOR: D. Ramsden OPPOSED: -- COMMUNICATIONS: Town Board <br /> Kay/Klopp to grant variance of 2.5 feet from required setback of Church Street to <br /> permit modified deck to remain. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1). Deck encroachment extends into required setback 4.5 feet on Southern end to 0.7 feet <br /> on North end. <br /> 2). The greatest encroachment(Southern end) is old construction which has existed 15 - <br /> 20 years. <br /> 3). Northern half of decking added with recent garage construction(ZP 2000-824). <br /> 4). Church Street is 1 mile long and not highly traveled road. <br /> 5). Applicant purchased property 2 years ago. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to <br /> applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried- 3-2. (Ross, Sayles—no.) <br /> for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.