Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 13, 2002 <br />neighborhood. Insisting that the house is placed on poor soils just to meet <br />setback requirements will make it cost - prohibitive to build this house. Fahey <br />indicated that his interpretation is that this would deny the reasonable use of <br />the property and felt a variance should be granted. <br />Scalze cautioned that granting a variance in this case will set a precedent for <br />anyone who has land that is expensive to develop. Scalze felt that just because <br />a property is expensive to develop does not mean that the reasonable use of the <br />property is being denied. Scalze pointed out that there are other properties <br />such as the Sculley property that may have the same situation. <br />Fahey stated that the development of large tracts of property with portions of <br />poor soils was different from the single lot that consists of poor soils. Fahey <br />there was little comparison in requiring the expenditure of an additional <br />$90,000 in foundation work for one single- family home versus the <br />development of a large piece of land. Fahey felt that the Roberto situation was <br />a hardship and pointed out that without a variance there will not be a home <br />developed on this property. Fahey also indicated that the addition of one <br />driveway onto Savage Lane was also not a basis to deny the variance request. <br />There was no one else present from the general public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Anderson, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Anderson pointed out that undue hardship must exist to warrant granting the <br />variance without which a property could not be put to a reasonable use. <br />Anderson felt that the shape of the property, the wet soils, and the way setback <br />requirements apply to this particular piece of land constitute an undue <br />hardship. <br />Joe Buche, Rose Lane, questioned the ability of someone to request a variance <br />on property they do not own. Fahey noted that it is likely that Mr. Roberto has <br />a purchase agreement on this property that is contingent upon the approval of a <br />variance. <br />Buche noted that he does not want to look out his front window into the <br />Roberto backyard. Buche felt this would devalue his property, and asked that <br />any house developed on this lot be moved as far north as possible. Fahey <br />stated that he understood Buche's feelings, but noted that the Council has to <br />balance the interests of the owner of the undeveloped property who wants to <br />develop his land. <br />4 <br />