Laserfiche WebLink
setback requirements of 75 feet, Lot 19 is p,culiar in that the <br />building on Lot 18 has an Extreme lakeshore setback, irconsi.stMt <br />with other homes in the neighborhood. The property ow^--,-s in Lhe <br />house with the extreme setback, h:)wever, are not opl, the <br />building variance requester]. <br />Upon review of the pecul*'ar conditions and unique hardship <br />affecting Ed"s property, it seems only too clear that by taking <br />away his right. to build a residercc on Lot 19, the Ci:-, is <br />diminishing his right as a property owner. <br />Upon review of the City"s ordinances and as outlined in <br />the memo, Ed Henrich had a right Lo maintain the building that <br />existed on Lot 19 and prior to its removal in 1975 as a legal <br />non -conforming use. If Ed would have been on notice that removal <br />of the existing building would terminate: his rights to build on <br />the property, he would not have removed tre building. Pursuant <br />to Section 10.09, Subdivisicn 10, of Code, Ed would have <br />applied for a Cond:.tional Use Per -it, dnd one "would have" been <br />issued. In thL: alternative and jursuant to the Code, Ed could <br />have made renovations to the property to repair and maintain the <br />structure. He could h&ve renovates: the struct,.ire, part by part, <br />as long as he did not increase the area then existing. The nec <br />effect of these actions today is that Ed Henrich could have had a <br />permanent residence on Lot 19 existing as a legal non -conforming <br />use. <br />-6- <br />