Laserfiche WebLink
September 18, 2008 Janice L.Link <br /> 612.977.8412 <br /> jlink@briggs.com <br /> VIA U.S. MAIL _ <br /> Dawn Bittner <br /> Zoning Administrator <br /> City of Pequot Lakes <br /> 4638 County Road 11 <br /> Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 <br /> Re: 5895 Inland Trails Road <br /> 10-Foot Side Yard Setback <br /> Dear Ms. Bittner: <br /> This letter is a follow-up to our meeting on August 22, 2008 during which we voiced our <br /> complaint concerning the construction of an addition plus a deck to the front of the cabin located <br /> at 5895 Inland Trails Road. We followed up that meeting with a phone call to you last week and <br /> was informed that you had brought this matter to the attention of the Planning Commission, and <br /> you hadn't received a response from them. <br /> The addition was started in late Fall of 2004 and was finished in the late summer of 2005, <br /> and included a deck. Our complaint is that the addition was built within the 10-foot side yard <br /> setback (only 3 feet from the property line), in violation of the applicable City Ordinances. You <br /> also informed us that a variance has never been recorded on this property, leaving us to believe <br /> that one was never applied for or granted. We were informed at our August 22 meeting that <br /> building permits were granted for the addition. It is our understanding that in order to obtain <br /> such permits, the property owner would have had to provide all necessary information including <br /> a drawing or site plan showing the property lines, the location of all structures, the measurements <br /> of all structures, decks, patios, sidewalks, septic system certification, pumping history and so on. <br /> If the site plan or drawing indicated that the existing structure to which the addition was <br /> constructed reflected that it was outside the 10-foot set back, then construction of such addition <br /> did not comply with the building permits because it is only 3 feet from the property line. A <br /> building permit should not have been granted unless a variance was provided, which it wasn't. <br /> This structure should be moved or removed in accordance with the strict interpretation of the <br /> Ordinance. <br /> 2232294v2 <br />