1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5).Existing right-of-way varies in width at the proposed location of the structure and Dane County Highway does not anticipate the need for additional right-of-way width in this area because of the existing wider-than-usual right-of-way. 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. 4 - 0. #3017. Appeal by Bernard Broadbent for a variance from required sideyard and maximum allowable percentage of improvement to a non-conforming structure as provided by Sections 10.07(7) and 10.23(2) to permit additions to existing residence at 2272 County Highway AB being Lot#14, Washington Park-Section 23, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: B. DOLLAR, B. BROADBENT OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: -Town Board, Dane County Highway ROSS/KAY to grant a variance of 104.8%from 50% maximum allowable percentage of improvement to a non-conforming structure to permit addition to existing structure, and to grant, with conditions, a variance of 7+/-'from required left sideyard to permit existing residence. Conditions: 1).The screened porch portion may not intrude into the minimum 10' required left sideyard. 2).The portion of the lakeside deck encroaching into the minimum 10' required left sideyard and 38.9' minimum average reduced setback to normal high water mark shall be removed. 3).The stairs off the deck may not intrude into the minimum 38.9' average reduced setback to the normal high water mark, and the minimum 10' required sideyard. 4).The roof and posts of the "shed" in the front yard shall be removed. Finding of Fact: 1).Zoning permit 1998-2463 issued in error on 11/24/98. 2).Applicant proposes a screened porch addition within 10 feet of left sideyard and two story-2 bedroom-2 bath-rec room addition to existing residence. 3).Average reduced setback to ordinary high-water mark is 38.9'. 4).Porch construction not included in $65,000.00 cost estimate for the proposed improvement to the non-conforming structure, but will be included in variance. 5).Existing one-bedroom residence was non-conforming in 1949 when previous permit was issued. 6).Applicant proceeded in good faith to comply with zoning ordinance and substantial work has already been done. 7).Complete removal of existing home would have been an option for zoning compliance had the owner and builder known of the non-conforming status; that option was not available because of zoning staff error. 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 4—0. #3018.Appeal by Earl Kinder for a variance from required setback from normal high watermark as provided by Section 11.03(2) to permit addition/alteration to existing