Laserfiche WebLink
extra bedroom, that they think it would be nice for resale <br />purposes and that Mrs. Schall needs a place to get away. None of <br />these is a hardship and their attempt to piggy -back this request <br />for a third bedroom onto what appears to be a legitimate request <br />for a variance with respect to the garage is not in keeping with <br />the law regarding variances. If that were the case, people could <br />build whatever and wherever they wanted provided part of the new <br />structure was supported by a hardship. <br />It is my understanding that in the past the City has allowed <br />people to build second stories over structures which are not <br />within the setback requirements, but it is my understanding that <br />City staff is now having second thoughts with respect to t?:at <br />policy because, in effect, wha ,they were doing is allowing an <br />expansion of a non-conforminV "' hich is nc_ permitted under <br />your ordinances absent another variance. This situation is also <br />different in that you are not being presented with an existing <br />structure, but rather you are being presented with a request to <br />create a new structure and putting reasonable constraints upon <br />pis new structure would not deviate from your past practices and <br />would be in keeping with the scheme of your ordinances. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Rudd support the variance request with respect to <br />the construction of a garage, but ask that you deny the rea+iest <br />with respect to the construction of the bedroom above the g ag, <br />because no hardship exists with respect to this second floor room <br />and the impact upon the Rudd property would be detrimental. <br />Very truly yours, <br />MACKINN , STANDYE & GREENE, LTD. <br />Ja,mps MacKinnon <br />JDM/VB <br />