Laserfiche WebLink
A1L0C11ICH P. MRMM[I. <br />•[LOON H. CASWELL <br />CLAYTON PANN•• JN. <br />SAUCE L. •CCN <br />Planning Commission <br />City of Little Canada <br />Slietrztrzet, easwer, (..PatIs Fi Bec4 <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />15D0 WHITE BEAM AVE.. ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55100 <br />PHONC 774.0731 <br />April 13, 1977 <br />Mr. Chlebeck has advised me that your Board is examining some <br />problems in connection with the proposal by Mr. Villieaux to expand his <br />mobile home park. Mrs. Rydel owns a home near the park and objects to <br />the proposed expansion because of the close proximity to her home. She <br />also states she was assured of a 200 foot buffer when the last expansion <br />took place. <br />Our Code is not very helpful in this case because there are no <br />clear -cut provisions covering mobile -home parks, which are permitted in <br />B -2 districts only. There are no side yard setback requirements for <br />B -2 districts except where there is an adjacent residential district <br />R -1 or R -2. (See Section 911.050 (a) page 110) In this case Mrs. Rydel's <br />home is not in a R -1 or R -2 district but rather on an R -3 lot, so the <br />50 foot setback would not apply. Inasmuch as setback regulations are <br />created by legislation and not by common law, there can only be a <br />setback if the Ordinance spells it out. Even though common sense and <br />good judgment would dictate some sort of a setback in this case, it <br />doesn't appear as though there is a setback regulation which would apply <br />here. Obviously, this is an area which was not considered when our <br />Ordinance was enacted but it certainly should be remedied by an amendement <br />to the Ordinance. <br />CPJr:po <br />Yours respectfully,/ <br />/ <br />Clayton Parks, Jr. <br />Page -17- <br />7 <br />