Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />~CTOBER 23, 1996 <br />Approval or denial of a variance cannot be based on a <br />popularity contest. <br />Fahey agreed, and pointed out with regard to the list <br />provided by Thorp that 30 or 40 wrongs do not make a <br />right. Fahey suggested a look be taken at the City's <br />ordinance with regard to sheds and compare it to what <br />surrounding cities are doing. <br />Thorp reported that when he obtained the building <br />permit for the shed, he went out and bought additional <br />equipment for his business. Thorp also reported that <br />moving the shed into the middle of his backyard will <br />take away his children's play area. Thorp felt the <br />shed would be an eyesore if located in the middle of <br />his backyard. <br />The City Administrator reported that a building permit <br />was required for Thorp's shed because it exceeded 120 <br />square feet in size. Anything smaller would not have <br />required a permit. The Administrator speculated many <br />of the sheds on Mr. Thorp's list were smaller than the <br />120 square feet. Therefore, no permit was needed and <br />the property owners inadvertantly placed the sheds in <br />the required setback area. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City cannot by law grant a <br />variance unless a hardship exists. In order to <br />determine hardship, it must be determined that the <br />property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the <br />variance. Fahey felt the Council would be hard pressed <br />to declare a hardship would result in requiring Mr. <br />Thorp to place his shed in his backyard. <br />Thorp reported that the City Administrator is aware of <br />other sheds in the neighborhood which violate setback <br />requirements, and that the Administrator has chosen to <br />ignore those violations. <br />There was no one from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on the special use permit for a home <br />occupation. <br />Upon motion by Scalze, seconded by Pedersen, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 96-10-261 - APPROVING A SPECIAL USE <br />PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AS REQUESTED BY MR. <br />5 <br />