Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hallan asked how current Planning Commissions are dealing with the Supreme Court <br />`-' decision. Mr. Marohn stated it was decided on an after -the -fact case. The main <br />difference is that Staff had gone out to the Ottertail County site 2 or 3 times during <br />construction and said it was okay. Then after a period of time had elapsed stated the <br />building was nonconforming. It was a residence and not a garage. <br />Mr. Williams asked what the appraised value of the Link property was. He was <br />wondering if the $8,000 to move the garage was a significant amount of that property <br />value. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated it is a significant amount when it has to come out of their <br />check book. Mr. Williams was looking for significant value. <br />Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if it will have a significant change to the neighborhood. The <br />character of the neighborhood has buildings situated all over the lots. <br />Mr. Adams stated the letter from Elaine May indicated she talked to both the contractor <br />and Mr. Link and that he had called her and stated he knew where the property line was. <br />She offered to split the cost of the survey and he said no. <br />Mr. Link explained on October 7, a Sunday evening, the contractor called and said Mrs. <br />May came over and said the garage is too close to her property. The builder said he told <br />her he had it where it should be and that it is where it was marked. The builder said that <br />maybe because your garage is too close to the lot line it makes it look closer. She said it <br />was okay. The builder said he would call Mr. Link and she said not to bother. He did <br />\.- call Mr. Link and explained the footings are 10 feet from the lot line. Mr. Link didn't <br />have Mrs. Mays number and he talked to the Bakers on the other side and asked if he <br />could see anything unusual. Mr. Baker hadn't noticed. Mr. Link called Mrs. May and <br />she said she had told the builder not to even call him. It's no big deal and don't worry <br />about it. Her pet peeve is looking at that trailer and asked if it could be put somewhere <br />else. Mr. Link stated that is the only spot to put the trailer. <br />The builder built it in the wrong spot. A -1 Builders has been approached and does not <br />take any responsibility; he stated he didn't make any mistakes. <br />Mr. Williams asked what the applicants propose to reduce the impervious surface. Mr. <br />Fitzpatrick stated they would bring it into conformity; the impervious coverage would <br />need to be calculated by an engineer. It may be to reduce by 2% and file a stormwater <br />plan or remove 7% and get the impervious down to no more than 20 %. They would <br />bring it into conformance by the end of this construction season. <br />Mr. Adams stated the impervious items in the Shore Impact Zone would be appropriate to <br />remove. Without having someone from WSN or somewhere look at this it is difficult to <br />know where the 20% or 25% should come from. <br />The concrete pad and all runoff from the apron run to the neighbor's property. They need <br />to remove the concrete and maintain stormwater. <br />Minutes 12 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />March 18, 2010 <br />