Laserfiche WebLink
M3-2WI <br />Octobtr 2«. 2«tJ <br />ra|tJ«r3 <br />moved to the location indicated on the site plan because its cunent <br />location is non<conforming with respect to setbacks. <br />Oplk»2: If the applicant does not want to combine the lots, then require that the <br />bam be removed and the lot remains vacam until it is sold for <br />development. <br />Option 3:Allow renewal of the original variance allowing the accessory structure to <br />remain on a lot which has no principal structure and still require it to be <br />moved to the location indicat^ on the site plan, but not address whether a <br />principal structure would ever be constructed. <br />Option 4:Grant a new variance allowing the bam to remain absent a principal <br />structure still sttpulaling that it be moved to a conforming location. The <br />new resolution could include language specifying a time limit by which a <br />dwielling treeds to be cortstructed or the accessor>- structure must be <br />remove and the variance would become null and void. <br />Neii^bor ComaMats <br />Please review the comments provided by the neighboring property owner (Exhibit F)* <br />Stair Recommendation <br />Require removal of the bam if the applicant doesn't wish to combine the parcels, or. if <br />the applicant agrm to combine the parcels require the building to be moved to the <br />coofonning location noted on the site plan.