My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-25-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
09-25-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:50:18 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEDffiER 25, 1996 <br />Code, the request does not meet the requirements for a <br />variance. Morelan felt perhaps the requirements were <br />too strict, and asked if they were required by State <br />law. <br />The City Planner replied that State Statute lists <br />certain rational for granting a variance, but he was <br />not sure how Little Canada's Code tracked with State <br />Statutes. The Planner did know that the Little Canada <br />Code tracked very closely with other communities. <br />Morelan felt the Code did not give the Council an <br />opportunity to look at the situation from a common <br />sense point of view. <br />Fahey felt the most important thing was to be <br />consistent. Whether or not the hardship definition is <br />too stringent is another debate. Fahey indicated he <br />would be uncomfortable granting a variance in this <br />situation and then denying someone the ability to put <br />an addition onto their home which extends in the <br />required back yard. Fahey asked under what <br />circumstances the City would allow building additions <br />to encroach into the required back yard. <br />Morelan suggested the variance criteria be changed, so <br />the City can look at these requests on a case-by-case <br />basis. <br />Fahey pointed out that the Council already loosened up <br />the variance procedure by allowing approval by simple <br />majority of the Council. There is supposed to be a <br />very unusual circumstance present to justify a <br />variance. Those circumstances cannot be due to actions <br />of the applicant or builder due to placement of the <br />house on the lot. <br />Morelan felt the Council should look at the Code and <br />make it more flexible. <br />Pedersen pointed out that Mr. Jebens is requesting a 7 <br />foot variance. Given the setback of the Jebens' house, <br />there is only 3 feet available to build a porch without <br />a variance. Mr. Jebens cannot make reasonable use of <br />his property within that 3 feet. <br />Scalze pointed out that there have been other variance <br />requests which the Council has denied because they felt <br />the house was too big for the property. <br />Morelan felt that using common sense and looking at <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.