Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />July 22, 1987 <br />Lepsche Fahey also pointed out that the applicants can accomplish the same <br />Lot Split thing through a private easement between the two parties. <br />(Cont.) <br /> Mr. Lepsche replied that he did not want to grant an easement as <br /> he would have liability for the parcel as well as would have to <br /> pay taxes on the property. Lepsche questioned why a lot split could <br /> not be granted if an easement accomplished the same thing. <br />Mrs. Lepsche pointed out that if an easement were granted, there would <br />still be tvao docks in the water, and this was the issue raised by the <br />DNR. Lepsche felt the easement was just a way to get around the law. <br />Fahey stated that the City cannot encourage variances that do not <br />comply with Code. Fahey stated that the easement was not a way to <br />get around the law, but rather a way to work within the law. Fahey <br />pointed out that approval of the variance would set a bad precedent <br />in future cases. <br />Fahey pointed out that the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted to protect <br />the people living on lakes in the City who are also paying higher <br />taxes because they live on a lake. The Shoreland Ordinance is a <br />part of City Code and the Council must abide by it. <br />Collova pointed out that in the case of condominium development on <br />a lake, there are a lot of property owners on a small parcel of <br />property. <br />The Planner pointed out that the number of docks on the lake would <br />still be restricted. <br />Fahey felt that the variance should be denied, pointing out that the <br />property owners can accomplish what they want to with an easement. <br />Fahey also noted that if Lepsche is concerned about liability and taxes, <br />he can sell the parcel to Cocchiarella and retain an easement for himself. <br />LaValle suggested that Lepsche could name Cocchiarella as an additional <br />insured on his insurance policy. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-7-330 - DENYING THE <br />COCCNIARELLA/LEPSCHE LOT SPLIT AS REQUESTED <br />BASED ON STATE LAW WHICH DOES NOT ALLOUI <br />COUNCIL TO GRANT A VARIANCE WITHOUT A HARDSHIP <br />AND THERE IS NO HARDSHIP PRESENT IN THIS CASE, <br />AND ALSO DUE TO THE RESPONSE FROM THE DNR <br />RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE LOT SPLIT <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. <br />Nays (11 LaValle. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 357. <br />Page -12- <br />