Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Marohn stated that if the variance is denied,the remaining outstanding violation <br /> needs to be resolved. Impervious coverage needs to be addressed. The variance and <br /> impervious coverage are separate issues. The variance is not an acceptable resolution of <br /> the violation. If the garage is removed,the impervious coverage is reduced. If garage is <br /> moved, we still have the impervious coverage issue. They could remove enough to be <br /> under 20%, or be at 25% with a stormwater management plan. The violation stays on <br /> violation list. Concrete part cannot be grandfathered in; road was possibly there. 454 sq. <br /> ft. of area needs to be removed to get to the 25%. Surveyor could help with that. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by John Derksen,to deny the variance, <br /> based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The structure, as it has been constructed, encroaches within the side yard setback. <br /> 2. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not create an undue hardship or <br /> be impractical as there is ample room on the property to construct the accessory <br /> structure in a conforming location. <br /> 3. The deviation from the Ordinance would not be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Ordinance. The side yard setbacks contained within the Ordinance <br /> are intended for such things as fire safety, buffering, maintenance, privacy and <br /> property values. The encroachment into the setback creates safety concerns, <br /> buffering issues, difficulties in maintenance, privacy concerns and potentially <br /> impairs adjacent property values. <br /> 4. The Variance will not create a land use not permitted in the Shoreline Residential <br /> District. An accessory structure is a permitted use in the Shoreland Residential <br /> zone. <br /> 5. The neighborhood is a mix of shoreline residential properties. Granting the <br /> variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. <br /> 6. Reasonable use of the property exists under the Ordinance with the garage located <br /> outside of the side yard setback. <br /> All members voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> The applicants did read the Staff Report prior to this meeting. <br /> APPLICANT: Todd and Kaye Grossman <br /> Applicant requests a Variance to Expand Existing Nonconforming Structure on <br /> Nonconforming Lot <br /> Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. <br /> Todd Grossman was present. <br /> No public comment. <br /> MINUTES 6 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> August 21, 2008 <br />