Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />b <br />I. <br />The Beckers in championin[!; line A-A as the required setback <br />line are basiiu; this on the line of sight from the Lauer house <br />ana thus are impiicdly approving the sight line interpretation <br />An arithmetical average setback based on the Decker-Lauer set- <br />backswould be half the total of the Becker setback of 115 feet <br />and the Lauer setback of l60 feet, or 137.5 feet. Using this 137.5 <br />feet figure would place the setback on a line which is about 20 <br />feet inshore from line A-A on Rhode's north house setback line <br />and 8 feet lakeward from line A-A on Rhode's south house setback <br />line. <br />In Curry v. Young. (1969) 285 Minn. 337, 173 N.W.(2) AlO, our <br />Supreme Court said that a "definite setback" can be required "so that <br />the appearance will be uniform." If that is the purpose of this <br />ordinance, then reasonable uniformity, not an exact mathematical <br />uniformity, seems logically to be all that can be required. Rea­ <br />sonable uniformity is achieved by the setback ordered by the council <br />since it achieves some ta'perlng of the southerly side of the Rhode <br />house between a line drawn from the southerly front of the Becker's ) <br />house to the southerly front of the Lauer's house. The initial <br />departure from uniformity was achieved by the Beckers locating <br />their house so much closer to the lake than the Lauers, so the <br />Beckers are not in a sound legal position when they object to <br />another house being about as close to the lake as theirs. <br />If the Lauer house were also 11> feet from the shoreline. <br />obviously the Beckers could have no possible objection to the <br />approved Rhode setback. It is only the Decker Induced fortuity <br />of the long and shorter setback:; of the Lauer and Becker houses <br />which gives the Beckers any basis for an argument that the approved <br />setback is improper. Under established principles the Beckers <br />have no legal standing to challenge the approved Rhode house <br />location because of the farther setback of the Lauer house. <br />Thus, in Schultz v. Krosch. (1939), 204 Minn. 585, 284 H.W. 782, <br />the court said at page 588: <br />- 14 -