DCPZP-2008-00306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane.County Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 of 8 May 22,2008 • The existing house is in a low-lying, wet area. Plans for the type of foundation necessary to avoid dampness and water damage have changed during the design process. Current plans call for a raised foundation, resulting in the change from an at-grade patio to a covered raised porch with steps to grade on the lake side, and also resulting in the addition of steps to grade from the small covered porch on the west side of the remodeled house. • The location of the well and the existing sanitary sewer service lateral, both located close to the west side of the house, make it difficult to move the entire house to the west. 3. Schutte presented concerns to be addressed before construction begins: • The Plot Plan must show the 843.5 Feet Above Mean Sea Level Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) elevation accurately. • The minimum setback of 70.0 feet from the OHWM to the closest point on any finished wall or extension of any deck, porch, or balcony must be shown on the Plot Plan before a Zoning permit may be issued. This is necessary to prevent misunderstandings, confusion, and mistakes during staking and construction. • The services of a Registered Land Surveyor, retained to verify all setback locations before construction begins, would help avoid problems. • An as-built survey to verify compliance, as measured to the finished walls, is required. • The setbacks from the Town road ROW and from the rear(north) lot line, as per the variances granted by the BOA on 09/27/2008 must be maintained during construction and confirmed by surveyor's verification to the finished wall after construction. 4. Lane commented that the mass of the house has increased, not by Anderson's choice, but because the soil analysis requires the house to have a special elevated foundation, instead of the crawl space shown on the original plan. This will raise the house about four feet above grade. Also, the roof pitch has become steeper and interior spaces were increased to accommodate building codes and minimal space needs, with the result that the footprint was enlarged. Lane recommended that the revised plans be approved as presented to the Board*, with no additional variances. The contractor has the alternative of exercising care and obtaining surveyor's verification to achieve compliance as granted 09/27/2007, or of reducing the footprint in the north and south dimensions slightly to avoid any violation. 5. Long stated his concern that reconsideration not be used by applicants seeking expansion beyond what the Board grants; applicants should be informed that they must submit a full and complete site plan. 6. Anderson described poor subsoil conditions, high ground water, run-off from the road, and poor drainage toward the lake (possibly blocked by the sanitary sewer main). This information was not available for consideration at the time of the September 2007 Appeal approval. Conclusions: 1. Unnecessary Hardship: No significant changes to conclusions beyond what was approved on 09/27/2007: "Reasonable to allow improvement of existing permitted residential use. Not self- imposed hardship—setback from Town road right-of-way to south came into existence after the house was originally built." 2. Unique Limitations of the Property: Changes/expansions to footprint of proposed remodeled/restored house are based on soil conditions and elevated ground water issues that were not evident in September 2007. In addition, it appears that the adjacent roadbed and nearby public sewer line adversely affect this lot. 3. No Harm to Public Interests: The changes to the building footprint are not essentially different. Expansion of what was granted in September 2007 will not cause additional impact to Shoreland. Motion carried: 4 —0. V. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Staff Communications: Distribution of related materials, discussion, and possible action by the Board regarding: