Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page#20 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 12, 1988 <br /> <br />inspections. DeBenedet stated that its the owner's <br />responsibility to ensure that laws are complied with. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the site troubles her and she could not vote <br />for the variance. Berry stated that this was maybe a task for <br />the Attorney to review and not the Planning commission. Berry <br />commented that it was unbelievable that a contractor could do <br />this. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the proper action is for denial. <br /> <br />Berry moved and Moeller seconded to recommend denial of the <br />variance on the basis that there is no demonstrated hardship, <br />that the house is too close to the lot line and there are <br />violations present on the site including retaining walls, <br />improper location of the dwelling and construction without proper <br />permits. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry, Goedeke, Stokes, Maschka, <br />Moeller, DeBenedet, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Abstain: <br /> <br />Stokes <br /> <br />Johnson stated and the Commission concurred that the dwelling <br />should be returned to the size permitted by the previously <br />granted variances and building permits and that the Council <br />should seek the advise of the City Attorney concerning legal <br />options and liabilities that the City may have in this matter. <br /> <br />Ad;ournment: <br /> <br />There being no further business, the meeting was adj ourned at <br />1:35 a.m. <br />