CC_Minutes_1992_0810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

N. McCarron's Blvd. (not those out of sight up Irene Street and Western Avenue). In fact, the relevant neighborhood is to large extent defined by the Schlosser property. · Two houses on lots 1 & 2 is a possibility only because of approved variances for lot 2, which is 10% below minimum area (combined with the fact that a large portion of irregularly-shaped lot 1 is property back up the hill is what will make two houses on lots 1 & 2 clearly out of conformity with "the neighborhood," as an on-site visit clearly reveals. · Granting of variances requires that hardship is established. · The only justification given for granting the variances, therefore the basis for hardship, is that many properties to the north on Irene Street and Western Avenue do not meet current code (that the Schlosser property is not "well-suited" for platting can hardly be considered a "hardship" to justify approval of variances so as to squeeze in a fifth lot). · When those properties were platted in the 1950's, they met the code that then existed (10,000 ft2 minimum area and 40 ft minimum width, per Rick Jopke). · The basis for Schlosser's hardship is thus called into question. · Our verbal understanding with Matt Schlosser in December 1990 was that he would not proceed on any development for at least five years, leading us to proceed with a $25-30 K addition that may now look out at a house ten feet off our property on lot 1 rather than down a sloping wooded hill to a lake. Given these circumstances and facts: Proposal 1 (Superior) Reconsider the basis for assessment of Matt Schlosser's property. If he is true in claiming he does not want to develop his property, he presumably would be willing to agree not to do so in exchange for assessment at the usual "longest street" rule rate. The hook-ups, the source of the problem, would effectively not exist. Although the decisions have been his, he appears to have been victimized by circumstances initiated 2