2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES 5/24/01 PAGE 3 try Finding of fact: 1). Applicant proposes to adjust lot lines by means of a certified survey map. 2). Property formerly utilized as a resort with rental units available. 3). Proposed Lot#1 is intended to have buildings demolished and new single family residence constructed. 4). Shoreland Zoning Ordinance is applicable,being located on Lake Kegonsa which requires 100 foot lot width and 15,000 square foot minimum lot area. Conclusion: 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to the applicant. 2). Variance is not contrary to the rights of others or the public interest. Motion carried. 5 —0. #3132. Appeal by Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10.17(2)to permit wheelchair ramp addition to existing building at 138 County Highway BB (Cottage Grove Road) in the NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 12, Town of Deerfield. IN FAVOR: G. Martin, L. Holzeuter OPPOSED: -- COMMUNICATION: Dane County Hwy. Dept. Ross / Sayles to grant, with condition, a variance of 15 feet +/from required setback of CTH BB,which will allow wheelchair access ramp, not to extend more than 6 feet from the front wall of the main body of the church, for not more than a distance of 10 feet either easterly or westerly from side wall of main body of existing church. Condition: The access ramp shall be removed at owners expense if future road improvement requires additional right of way. Finding of fact: 1). The church is proposing to add wheelchair accessibility ramp for its handicapped parishioners. 2). The church has been situated in its present location for 125 years. 3). Property slopes away from road so that an addition to rear of church would have to rise 2 stories. 4). Applicants are undecided as to which direction ramp will ultimately go,but requested variance to go westerly which would require largest variance. 5). A portion of front wall and entire church entry is within required setback as presently exists. Conclusion: 1). Variance is not contrary to the rights of others or to the public interest. 2). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to the applicant.