My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02614
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2600
>
pf_02614
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:59:13 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:12:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2614
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1281 JOSEPHINE RD
Applicant
KADRIE, CHUCK
Status
APPROVED
PIN
032923120007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
<br />In Freeman, the home was located 45 feet from the ordinary <br />high water level of French Lake, in violation of the 75 foot <br />setback requirement. Freeman wanted to remodel his home because a <br />natural waterway beneath a portion of the house had eroded the <br />foundation. Freeman proposed to demolish a 240 square foot room <br />and then build a 224 square foot addition on to the second floor <br />above the attached garage. The setback would not have been <br />decreased by the proposed changes. Because the underlying policy <br />of the Rice County Zoning Ordinance was to eventually eliminate <br />non-conforming uses, rather than to take action to assist their <br />survival, the requested variance was denied. <br />Looking at these two cases, it seems clear that the City's <br />action in denying a variance to complete plaintiff's deck was more <br />than reasonable. In fact, these cases make clear that the City <br />could reasonably have refused to issue a variance for the kitchen <br />addition itself. Although that addition did not increase the <br />substandard dimension or decrease the setback, it certainly <br />expanded and enlarged the nonconformity by enclosing the area of <br />the deck. Not only was the City's action in refusing to permit <br />counterclaim of the deck not arbitrary or capricious it was, in <br />fact, eminently reasonable. Clearly, plaintiff's deck expands and <br />extends a nonconforming use and violates the Roseville Zoning Code. <br />CONCLUSION <br />This court's consideration of the issues presented here are <br />not precluded from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata. <br />Plaintiff's deck increased a substandard dimension and also <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.