Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br />, \ J l' <br /> <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. <br /> <br />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 /> <br />substandard anq if the substandard dimensions, have been expanded by <br /> <br />the addition of a new deck, the court considered the arguments of <br /> <br />both parties and considered the relevant law. <br /> <br />Accordingly, this court finds that the appropriate points of <br /> <br />measurement for determining the set-back of the defendant's <br /> <br />property is the high water mark of Lake Josephine and the <br /> <br />defendant's structure. This distance is fifteen (15) feet between <br /> <br />the lake and his at grade deck. The above-ground qeck is seventeen <br /> <br />(17) feet from the lake and has not decreased the existing set- <br /> <br />back. <br /> <br />Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of the set-back <br /> <br />violation pursuant to section 18.100 (2) (c) of the Shore Land <br /> <br />Management Ordinance. <br /> <br />As to the second offense - substandard use violation - the <br /> <br />City has not met its burden of proof that the defendant increased <br /> <br />the substandard dimensions by the addition of the new deck. <br /> <br />Accordingly, the defendant is also not guilty of the substandard <br /> <br />use violation pursuant to Section 18.250 of the Shore Land <br /> <br />Management Ordinance. <br /> <br />J. M. S. <br /> <br />5 <br />