Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arden Hi11s Council <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />May 11, 1992 <br /> <br />resulting from damage to the porch should <br />maintenance work need to be done on the watermain, <br />or <br />2) The porch be removed. <br />Planning Commission has recommended denial of a <br />variance. <br /> <br />Counci1member Hicks asked if the porch must be removed if <br />the applicant does not agree to indemnify or the City grant <br />a variance. Bergly said that is his and the City Attorney's <br />opinion. <br /> <br />Clayton Larson stated that he applied for the variance to <br />obtain clear title because the porch is a nice feature of <br />the house which he would like to keep. He explained that if <br />he agreed to indemnify, he would simply be faced with the <br />possibility of having to remove or repair the porch at some <br />later time without advanced notice. He added that an <br />indemnification agreement would not allow him to obtain <br />clear title, therefore, he is unwilling to agree to <br />indemnity. <br /> <br />Larson explained that he felt this situation is unique, it <br />was not caused intentionally, it is in no way an aggressive <br />encroachment upon the easement, and there is no other <br />location on the property to construct a porch. He stated <br />that it was probably the original builder's fault that the <br />deck was built encroaching upon the easement, and now as the <br />new owner, he is suffering the consequences. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks asked Larson if clear title can only be <br />obtained by the removal of the porch or the granting of a <br />variance. Larson answered yes and clarified that an <br />indemnification agreement would not suffice to obtain clear <br />title but would subject him to future costs to remove the <br />porch. Larson stated that as a building inspector himself, <br />he understands this type of issue very well, but is of the <br />opinion that a variance would be appropriate in this case <br />given the unique situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated that while he sympathizes with <br />Larson and understands the situation was not created <br />maliciously, he agrees with the Planning commission's <br />recommendation because the City must have ability to access <br />the watermain immediately should a maintenance problem <br />arise. <br />