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