1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES 8/26/99 PAGE 4 Condition: 1) . The structure shall be removed at the owner' s expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. Finding of Fact: 1) . Applicant proposes to raze existing garage and construct new alongside residence. 2) . Applicant' s deed does not include a strip of land between existing right-of-way line and deeded property. 3) . Belief is that lands formerly road right-of-way were vacated but never included in owner title. 4) . If title work discloses strip of land belongs to applicant then variance is not necessary. 5) . Lot slopes increasingly towards Lake Kegonsa from highway. Conclusion: 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried - 5-0. #3046. Appeal by Madison Area Technical College for a variance from maximum height permitted under the Dane County Regional Airport Height Limitation Zone as provided by Section 78.03 to permit ball diamond lighting at 3102 Straubel Street in the NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 32, City of Madison. IN FAVOR: K. Williamson, G. Donovan OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Department of Transportation, County Airport KLOPP/LONG to hold request in abeyance, not beyond October Hearing, to allow applicant to provide independant safety study. Motion carried - 5-0. #3047. Appeal by David & Judy Ross for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10.17 (1) to permit porch addition to existing residence at 1638 State Highway 92 (Washington Street) in the SW 1/4 SE 1/4 and SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 34, Town of Springdale. IN FAVOR: D & J Ross OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: --- ROSS/SAYLES to grant variance of 2 . 9 feet from required setback to STH 92 to permit residential addition as proposed. Finding of Fact: 1) . Applicant' s residence was constructed in 1918. 2) . Proposed enclosed porch, 10' x 23' , will replace crumbling slab entry. 3) . Approximately 1/2 of existing residence is already within required setback. 4) . Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming structures with numerous variances granted. Conclusion: 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried - 5-0. APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS: