Laserfiche WebLink
#2361 - Yaeger <br />June 11,1998 <br />Page 6 <br />C.Recommend that the new cabin and gazebo be allowed to remain located as constmcted with <br />no changes, granting setback, hardcover and foundation variances (specifically define the <br />hardships that support each variance). QR <br />D. Other, or some combination of the above. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The best option would be a combination of 1 A and 2 A: Applicant should acquire Lots 8-9- <br />10-11-65 and combine with Lot 64 per Record Lot #15, and then move the cabin and gazebo <br />to conforming locations at least 75' from the lake, providing cabin with a conforming <br />foundation. <br />However, the reason for the variance request is that the above may not be feasible. In that <br />case, staff recommends options 1C and 2 A: Applicant should acquire Lot 65 and combine <br />it with Lot 64, then move the cabin and gazebo to conforming locations 75 ’ from the lake, <br />providing cabin with a conforming foundation. Lots 64-65 become Record Lot #15A, Lots <br />8-9-10-11 become #15B. <br />If applicant cannot acquire Lot 65, staffs third choice would be options IB and 2 A: <br />Designate Lot 64 as Record Lot#15A, designate Lots 65-8-9-10-11 as Record Lot #15B, and <br />grant lot area/width variance for #15A, plus require that cabin and gazebo be moved to <br />conforming locations with cabin getting a conforming foundation. <br />The transfer of development rights from one record lot to another may only be appropriate <br />for lots which are adjacent or separated only by a right-of-way; this would require an <br />amendment of the RS District standards. Staff feels it is probably not appropriate for such <br />transfer when lots are widely separated. <br />Staff recommends denial of the request to allow the new cabin to remain in its current <br />location entirely wdthin the 0-75' lakeshore yard. Although it will be difficult to relocate it, <br />this problem would not have occurred if the required building permit had been obtained <br />before construction. The owner has created his own 'hardship', not a valid justification for <br />variances, especially when it is clearly possible to meet the required lakeshore and side <br />setbacks. Planning Commission should suggest a timeframe for relocation of the offending <br />structures. All plumbing fixtures must be omitted unless/until a conforming septic system <br />is provided. <br />1 <br />i