My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1982_1113_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982
>
1982_1113_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2012 1:23:55 PM
Creation date
2/1/2012 1:17:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
,6% <br />CASE NUMBER: F 1412 -8 2 <br />APPLICANT: Edward McCarty <br />1 December 1982 <br />page 3 <br />Mr, McCarty' s land appears not to he unique in this respect. The <br />Ordinance requires a .mi-nimum of 100 feet of frontage (on a street) <br />for a shoreline zoning lot, Scaling the section map Indic ate s ' a <br />frontage of appro'cimat ely 172 feet. Scaling the lines on the air <br />photo (as drawn by Mr. McCarty) indicates a frontage of approximately <br />190 feet. you will notice, of course, that Mr, McCarty' s westerly <br />boundary is out in the water inasmuch as Langton Lake is a nonmeandered <br />lake. In any case, the property enjoys more than adequate frontage <br />and appears not to be unique in the sense that additional property <br />-is needed to he extended into the lake to satisfy a reasonable <br />occupancy of the land* <br />( 3 ) The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the <br />publI c interest or damaging to the rights of other 12ersons <br />or to prop ertz values - in the neighborhood., <br />It would appear that in this .case the construction would be <br />contrary to the public interest inasmuch as it creates an artificial <br />shoreline visible from other properties and parts of the lake. One <br />of the specific purposes of the ordinance was to protect the natural <br />enVironxment of the shoreline so as to enhance the aesthetic qualities <br />of the lake on a permanent hasi s f You are all aware that much of <br />the shoreline has been acquired by the City, and though portions - <br />o f . the shoreline are in private Ana rids , it would appear to <br />substantially impair the quality of the lake by permitting such <br />private property owners to extend the shoreline into the lake by <br />creating an articial wall as a substitute for the natural shoreline <br />No variance shall be granted simply because there are no <br />objections or because these who do not ob ' ect outnumber <br />those who do; nor for any other reason than a proved <br />hardship, <br />It would appear in this case that no visible hardship can be proven. <br />It would appear to be a smatter of simply extending the property <br />into the Lake, for the convenience of the land owner to the detriment <br />of the public interest, � <br />We are aware that many of the neighbors are very concerned about the <br />proposed construction. Many of these same persons were active over <br />a period of gears encouraging the City to adopt the shoreline <br />Ordinance following the enabling legislation adopted by the state <br />Legislature, Mr. McCarty, himself, was one of the strong proponents <br />of the ordinance when it was initially established by the Council. <br />Having lived with the natural shoreline condition for these many <br />years, one wonders whether it is essential to change that condition <br />at this time, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.