My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4d - After-the-fact Variance from Side Yeard Setback
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010
>
03-18-2010 Planning Commission Meeting
>
4d - After-the-fact Variance from Side Yeard Setback
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2016 12:58:29 PM
Creation date
5/12/2016 12:58:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Pursuant to the Pequot Lakes City Ordinance, Section 170.040, the applicant should be prepared at <br /> the public hearing to explain the unique hardship for the proposed variance. A hardship is defined <br /> as a condition whereby the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br /> conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances <br /> unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if <br /> reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. <br /> (1) What are the unique circumstances of the parcel size,shape,topography or other characteristics <br /> that make strict interpretation of the Ordinance impractical? <br /> This lot was glutted in 1921 . The total lot area is 18,899 <br /> sgua.re feet with some slope from the rear. The lot shape is <br /> irregular with sharply converging side lines. <br /> (2) How is granting this variance consistent with the intent of the City of Pequot Lakes Land Use or <br /> Subdivision Ordinance? <br /> This lot was platted many years before any zoning performance <br /> standards were developed and adopted. The use of the property <br /> is consistent with zoning, but meeting all per ormance s an ards <br /> is very challenging. <br /> (3) How will reasonable use of the parcel be deprived if the variance is not granted? <br /> garage The location within the side and setback was done in <br /> error, but it is fully consistent with the pattern of neig or ood <br /> developments. For example, the garages on both sides of t is <br /> lot encroach significantly into the sideya�fsack. <br /> (4) What other options,either conforming or non-conforming,have been considered and why were <br /> those options not chosen? <br /> The garage was intended to conform to the 10 ' sideyard setback. <br /> Because of the slope into which it is built, relocating it <br /> would be very difficult without major damage to the structure. <br /> (5) Describe the impact on the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. If <br /> there is no impact,explain why. <br /> There is no impact. All these plotted lots are limited in area, <br /> and as a result sideyard encroachments are commonplace. <br /> The garages of both immediate neighbors encroach to a greater <br /> degxee than the subject garage- <br /> REV: JAN 2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.