Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />I'ick F«.'nson, <br />FW>1:Hank Midiich, <br />mil:July 9. 1976 <br />SUBrJXT:Travis Smith <br />Variance - Rear Yard Setback <br />The Sndth*s originally obtained a building pennit to construct a dwelling ^ <br />located on the original survey. Hither the owner or contractor changed this <br />proposed locatidi to the opposite comer. <br />When we made our first footing inspection the footing appeared to he set back <br />tlie necessary 30*. Without the proper engineering instninents, it is impossible <br />to measure the horizontal distance over mounds of dirt and into 4* or S' <br />excavations. <br />Since the building has been framed in, Mr. I.arrv’ Shaw, a neighbor, has turned <br />in a complaint of encroachment on the rear lot line. We requested a new survey <br />from the Smith's which they submitted on July 7, 1970. Hie new survey docs <br />confirm the allegation of encroachment. Since learning of this, the Pith's <br />have submitted an application for a variance from the rear yard setback require­ <br />ment. Hie location of the house as built is 20'8" from the rear lot line <br />v4iich is 3*4” short of the required 30* setback requirement. <br />This parcel is one of the two resulting from the replatting of Fagemess Hreen <br />Subdivision which was approved December 10, 1973. Please note the shaded <br />shoreline area across the street from the siAijcct property as shown on the <br />enclosed copy of the Fagemess Green S\/bdivision. Hiis .• horeline area was <br />evidently not included in this plat, fherefore, I would like to remind the <br />owner that no docks would be permitted along this shoreline as it is not part <br />of the property. Since it is not a part of Lot 2, it would at best be a <br />separate parcel. Our ordinance does not peniiit any accessory use ‘ ithout a <br />main structure. <br />•> <br />V >. J T ' <br />f <br />.mm. <br />M <br />mm wm't ■ . ■ * *