pf_01412 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. McCarty's land appears not to be unique in this respect. The Ordinance requires a.minimum of 100 feet of frontage (on a street) for a shoreline zoning lot. Scaling the section map indicates a frontage of approximately 172 feet. Scaling the lines on the air photo (as drawn by Mr. McCarty) indicates a frontage of approximately 190 feet. You will notice, of course, that Mr. McCarty's westerly boundary is out in the water inasmuch as Langton Lake is a nonmeandered " lake. In any case, the property enjoys more than adequate frontage` and appears not to be unique in the sense that additional property is needed to be extended into the lake to satisfy a reasonable occupancy of the land. (3) The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to property values in the neighborhood. It would appear that in this.case the construction would be contrary to the public interest inasmuch as it creates an artificial shoreline visible from other properties and parts of the lake. One of the specific purposes of the Ordinance was to protect the natural. environment of the shoreline so as to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the lake on a permanent basis. You are all aware that much of the shoreline has been acquired by the City, and though portions of the shoreline are in private hands, it would appear to substantially impair the quality of the lake by permitting such private property owners to extend the shoreline into the lake by creating an articial wall as a substitute for the natural shoreline. (4) No variance shall be granted simply because there are no objections or because those who do not object outnumber those who do; nor for any other reason than a proved hardship. It would appear in this case that no visible hardship can be proven, It would appear to be a matter of simply extending the property into the lake for the convenience of the land owner to the detriment of the public interest. We are aware that many of the neighbors are very concerned about the proposed construction. Many of these same persons were active over a period of years encouraging the City to adopt the Shoreline a' Ordinance following the enabling legislation adopted by the State" Legislature. Mr. McCarty, himself, was one of the strong proponents x, of the Ordinan--e when it was initially established by the Council. r Having lived with the natural shoreline condition for these many years, one wonders whether it is essential to change that condition' at.this time. i