Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Commission Member McLean commented in the capacity of a neighbor rather than a Commission <br /> Member. Mr. McLean indicated he did not have concems 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 /> Mrs. Hasiak stated that their priority is to be allowed to complete the interior improvements. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Motion by Commission Member DeVine, seconded by Commission Member LaMotte, to continue <br /> the public hearing to the October 11, 2000, City Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m. All in favor. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br /> Page 2of13 <br />