1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES 7/22/99 PAGE 3 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. #3036. Appeal by Joe Curless for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10. 16 (5) to permit deck addition to existing residence at 2867 Lakeside Street being Lot 1, Block #6, First Addition to Waubesa Beach Section 8, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: J. Page OPPOSED: --- communication: Town Board. ROSS/KLOPP to grant a variance of 4 . 9 feet from required setback to road to permit existing deck running the length of the residence. Motion failed - 1-4 (Klopp, aye) . ROSS/SAYLES to deny variance of 4 . 5 feet from required setback to right-of-way of Lakeside Street to permit deck addition as proposed. Motion carried - 5-0. Finding of Fact: 1) . Applicant has encroaching deck on Lakeside Street which appears recent construction. 2) . Ordinance, 10. 16 (4) (fm) Dane County Code of Ordinances, allows for entry to encroach into required setback, but limits structure to 12 feet in width. 3) . Previous property owner constructed original decking and present owner wishes to expand. 4) . Applicant can have substantial deck without violating setback requirements. 5) . Property has had previous variances for garage setback from right-of-way and rearyard requirements (Variance #2628- 6/95) Conclusion: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. #3037 . Appeal by Jerome Frautschi for a variance from required setback from normal high watermark as provided by Section 11 . 03 (2) to permit proposed additions to existing residence at 3807 County Highway M being Lot #2, CSM #6526 in the N 1/2 NE 1/4 Section 5 South, Town of Westport. IN FAVOR: J. Klassy OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board KAY/SAYLES to grant variances of 11 . 8 feet (to Westside) and 16. 8 feet (to Eastside) from required setback from normal high watermark to permit additions to existing residence as permitted. Finding of Fact: 1) . Proposed additions are behind existing building line encroachment.