Laserfiche WebLink
4. There was no evidence provided that the applicant would meet the Shoreland <br />Ordinance impervious surface requirements, or the City's regulation of fence <br />height. <br />5. The facility has been partially constructed in violation of the City's zoning <br />regulations, without proper building permits, and in contravention of specific <br />orders to discontinue work from City authorities. <br />6. The location of the proposed facility, including noise, lights, and activity <br />generated by the use of the facility, created a concern that neighboring <br />properties would suffer a diminution in property values due to the highly <br />exposed location of the facility adjacent to the public street. <br />7. The applicant has not suffered any infringement in the rights to put his <br />property to reasonable use, since these uses are legal in the rear yard under the <br />City's zoning regulations, subject to requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, <br />proper permitting, and other applicable building and zoning code <br />requirements. <br />8. The proposed facility is inconsistent with the architectural character of the <br />front yards of surrounding property. <br />3 <br />