11-08-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8. 9. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did remove twelve trees with a diameter greater than 6" located within 75’ of the shoreline without first applying for or obtaining a permit from the City. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did intensive vegetation clearing within 75’ of the shoreline on the property by removing approximately fony-elght trees of diameter 2" to 6" and dozens of trees with a diameter of 0" to 2". removing virtually all woody vegetation in the 0-75’ zone except for three 24" to 30" hardwoods near the north boundary of the property. The Council finds that this activity meets the definition of intensive vegetation clearing. The applicant upon notification of the violation indicated a knowledge of the code prohibitions on tree cutting, and at the Planning Commission public hearing indicated that while his intent was to gain additional views of the hke from the existing residence, it was not his intent to have the employee remove trees within the 0-75’ zone. He stated that the employee did not follow his instructions, but that the applicant is ultimately responsible for the employee’s actions. The Council finds that no acceptable hardship has been presented by the applicant nor has any justification been presented that would support after-the-fact variance approval. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing that occurred is clearing in excess of that "limited clearing of shrubs and trees and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees" which might be allowed by code if screening is not substantially reduced. The Council finds that screening has been substantially reduced, to the detriment of the neighborhood and the users of the lake. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing and tree removal in the 0-75’ zone, if approved after-the-fact, would r'*sult in the alteration of the essential character of the neighborliood; that the plight of the applicant is created totally by the applicant and not by circumstances unique to the property nor out of applicant ’s control; that granting of the proposed variance would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and tlie applicant has demtinstrated no reasonable hardship or practical difficulty; that the conditions and Zoning Cixle requirements imposed on this property apply to all other properties in the Pace 3 of 5