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 />set-back required of his property. It is clear in the code that <br /> <br />for new construction, the set-back requirement is seventy-five (75) <br /> <br />feet. However, for property like the defendant's there is no <br /> <br />specific set-back requirement since his property is a substandard <br /> <br />use. <br /> <br />In determining what dimensions of the defendant's property are <br />substandard and if the substandard dimensions. have been expanded by <br />the addition of a new deck, the court considered the arguments of <br />both parties and considered the relevant law. <br />Accordingly, this court finds that the appropriate points of <br />measurement for determining the set-back of the defendant's <br />property is the high water mark of Lake Josephine and the <br />defendant's structure. This distance is fifteen (15) feet between <br />the lake and his at grade deck. The above-ground deck is seventeen <br />(17) feet from the lake and has not decreased the existing set- <br />back. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of the set-back <br />violation pursuant to section 18.100 (2) (c) of the Shore Land <br />Management Ordinance. <br />As to the second offense - substandard use violation - the <br />city has not met its burden of proof that the defendant increased <br />the substandard dimensions by the addition of the new deck. <br />Accordingly, the defendant is also not guilty of the substandard <br />use violation pursuant to section 18.250 of the Shore Land <br />Management Ordinance. <br /> <br />J.M.S. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.