pf_02614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

· I .' , . required for this addition. In 1991, the defendant applied for and received a building permi t for additional work which included plans that showed a proposed expansion of the kitchen area onto the existing first floor deck with a new deck extended beyond this addition. The permit was granted and the construction on the kitchen addition and new deck commen~ed. In July, 1993, city_ staff for Roseville ordered the defendant to stop further construction cla:~ing that the cons~ruction was in violation of the Shore Land Management Ordinance. The defendant then applied for a variance to Section 18.100. A partial variance was granted that did not include the new deck. In denying the variance, the council stated that they would not permit the defendant to increas= the substandard dimensions of the structure as this violated section 18.250. The City argues that the defendant is guilty of each of these ordinance violations. They argue that as a substandard use the structure cannot be altered or increased in dimensions. It is their claim that any additions beyond the point where the deck was originally situated on the first floor is an increase in dimension and a violation of the ordinance. In makin~ this claim, the city argues that the at grade deck is not a deck and is really a patio. Therefore, it is not an appurtenant structur~. so it is not an - . . appropriate measuring line. Alternativelý, they argue that even if it is an appurtenant structure, the ordinance prohibits expanding the dimensions of substandard uses. The defendant argues that the court must determine the minimum 4