Laserfiche WebLink
June 7, 1967 <br />CASE: <br />A.�Fl�ICANT: <br />385-67 <br />Raymond Kroiss <br />� � <br />LOCATIl7N: Galtier Street a�d Maple Stre�t <br />(Betw�en Vdestem and Rice Sireet north a:� Cou;�ty <br />�Road �-2) <br />ACTIC�N REQUESTE[?: �ariance to Side Yard Setbaek <br />FI.�ONNING CON�SIDERATIONS: <br />1. At the hearing, the Applicant should be yuesti�ned regardin� the bockground <br />to t�is request, inasmuch as there was apparent�y a lawsuit inv�qlved �ertai�'rng <br />to tl,�e �onstru.ction of the h�me in an in�orrect (ocation on the lot. Tht�s, it <br />might be important for the Planning CommeLL,sion and Council to realize th� <br />nature of any legal implications prior to actirrg on this request. <br />2. A� yc� will see from the sketch, which is a copy of port of a drav+aing <br />submitted by the ApplicaRt, the house in question is located 5 6eet �rom <br />the southerly property line and some 34.5 feet from the northerly pro�perty� <br />lin�. The error in qu�estion appears to be obvious. <br />3. The Applicant is �equesting a variance for th� 5 foot setback frorru 5��� requir�d <br />10 foot setback st�y�ulated in the ordinance, You wi II rrote that en t�Ois case, <br />the distc�nces between the hous�s are greater than that required I�,y �he ordinc�n�e <br />(20 feet). �bviously, the principaQ property affected is th� contiguotrs prc�q�erty <br />owner to �he south. Thus, the involvement of the property own�r to the south <br />an the case, an� his concem should be of princiFaal interest. <br />