05-28-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Applicant then submitted the application for a variance, noting that because of the likely location of the house to the north, a variance would not have a visual crowding effect on the properties. As of this writing, he has continued with the house (framing appears completed) but has not poured the footings for the garage. The excavating for these footings is starting to erode, and applicant wishes a quick resolution to the problem so he can proceed to pour. Considering the specific circumstances, a lot Jine rearrangemnt would be possible that would create the required 30' side setbacks while maintaining over 2.0 acres on each property and not affecting either lot from a septic site or aesthetic standpoint. The applicant would prefer the granting of a variance. Obviously a variance is a less costly procedure and is a quicker solution to the problem. Planning Commission, at their May 20th meeting, recommended approval of a variance to allow the 11' side setback, finding that: 1. Applicant owns the adjacent property to the north and intends to develope that property. 2. The location of the existing house and intended garage will not have a significant effect, visual or otherwise, on the ad- jacent property to the north, based on the likely location for a home on that adjacent property. 3. The applicant did not intend to locate the house and garage 11' from the side lot line; the original approved site plan showed a setback of 33' from the side lot line; and the location 11' from the lot line is the result of construction errors which were not apparent until substantial work had been completed on the pro.jE ^t. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation for approval, I ave attached a draft resolution reflecting that recommendation.