Laserfiche WebLink
<br />sewage/water backups. Mrs. Hasiak referred to a videotape in her possession that she wished to play for <br />the committee and stated that Mr. March had previously viewed same. Mr. March told the Committee <br />he had viewed the tape earlier in the day and noted that the condition of the home is a civil issue to be <br />handled with the previous property owner. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned Mrs. Hasiak as to why her situation was a special <br />circumstance that would warrant the granting of a variance. Ms. Hasiak stated that the building is <br />considered a non-conforming structure; however, they would like the opportunity to enjoy a garage and <br />have storage similar to a basement. <br /> <br />Mr. March stated he felt the criteria for granting a variance had been met in regards to the repairs on the <br />interior of the building; however, exterior adjustments or improvements should not be included. Mr. <br />March stated that other residents in the community have the opportunity to sheetrock, cement the floor <br />and insulate their garage space if so desired. Mr. March stated that the Hasiak's non-conforming <br />structure is much larger than most garages, which benefits the Hasiaks. Mr. March also noted that the <br />Hasiak's property is large enough to be split, hence two assessments for service stubs on their property. <br />Mr. March stated that the second special assessment placed on the Hasiak's property had been <br />previously deferred by Council for 10 years excluding interest. <br /> <br />Commission Member Brainard inquired if Mr. March believed the hardship requirement could be met. <br />Mr. March indicated the basement is not suitable for storage. The Planning and Zoning Commission <br />and the Council knew the building was there. The neighbors knew the building was there when they <br />moved in. He explained he feels allowing the improvements to the interior provided proper permits are <br />obtained would be agreeable to everyone. However, he expressed concern for allowing an enlargement <br />to the building. <br /> <br />Commission Member McLean commented in the capacity of a neighbor rather than a Commission <br />Member. Mr. McLean indicated he did not have concerns with the interior improvements to the <br />building; however, he was concerned with the exterior improvements. Mr. McLean indicated that the <br />Hasiaks would benefit differently than any other resident of the community due to the fact that their <br />accessory structure currently is larger than allowable and others are exempt to building accessory <br />structures of similar size. <br /> <br />Mrs. Hasiak stated that their priority is to be allowed to complete the interior improvements. <br /> <br />Commission Member LaMotte questioned the location of the accessory structure versus the property <br />line. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the structure is approximately fourteen (14) feet from the property line. <br /> <br />Commission Member LaMotte stated that storage of automobiles is the responsibility of the owner not <br />the City. Mrs. Hasiak indicated she has three (3) antique cars and would like to store them inside the <br />structure. <br /> <br />Commission Member LaMotte questioned the Hasiaks whether they were capable of adding an attached <br />garage to the house. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the lot size did not allow for an attached garage. <br /> <br />Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member LaMotte. to continue <br />the public hearin~ to the October 11. 2000. City Council Meetin~ at 6:00 {l.m. All in favor. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br />Page 2 of 13 <br />