07-21-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mavor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 8 garage so he rarely uses this easement.) The main point, however,* is that the fact that I purchased a house which had driveway easements is irrelevant to whether a house should be built on the Rhode property. First of all, I am not asking for a variance to build a house. Secondly, these are not easements to the lake and do not create a ”mini-marina." Thirdly, these ease ments do not pass within sixteen feet of my house or anyone else's house as do the walkway easements to the lake on the Rhode property. And, lastly, no one has challenged the validity of the easements on my property. 11)Resolution 8S1 represents at l^^st three instances of deliberate misstatements of fact! a.Paragraph 25, as drafted by Mr. Rhode's counsel, says that because of soil con ditions and deleterious effect on property values, Mr. Rhode cannot be required to put the house where the Code says it should be. Soil tests claimed by Mr. Rhode before the Planning Commission and Council were never undertaken. Soil tests taken by a reputable firm (Braun), at my expense, can just as easily be located in the vicinity of the carriage house. Placing the home further back does not adversely affect anyone's value since it replaces a ramshackle structure the carriage house--with a new residence. b.Paragraph 24C says there will be no fire danger from the Rhode house (26 feet from Becker's). I believe an expert witness would refute this. c. Paragraph 21(b)(3) states that Rogers did not have an equitable interest in Rhode's lot while he owned 3145 North Shore Drive. This is untrue. Rogers had his brother buy 1410 Bohns Point Road from Cutshalls (i.e.. Purchase Contract) before I took title to Rogers' house at 3145 North Shore Drive. |-‘i| f i r.J