Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Mayor and City Council <br />18 March 1982 Page Two <br />Assuming the variance issue can be resolved, we do not feel that any <br />extra conditions need be imposed on the structure in question. <br />2. Variance for Building Height. Section 922 of the Zoning Ordinance <br />governs variances to the provisions of the Ordinance. We seriously <br />question whether the applicant's request meets the criteria for <br />variance, specifically Sections 922.010 C.2.c. and d. <br />922.010 C.2.c. precludes variances from being granted which are results <br />of the applicant's actions. In this case, the applicant built his <br />building too high. If he had applied for a building permit prior to <br />construction, the problems may have been avoided. <br />922.010 C.2.d. indicates that a variance should not give the applicant <br />a special privilege which others in the same Zoning District would not <br />enjoy. This would apply to the R -1 District. If 17 feet is acceptable <br />for Mr. Gagne, shouldn't it be acceptable for everyone else? If that is <br />the case, perhaps the Ordinance should be amended to make 17 feet the <br />maximum height standard. <br />RECOfM1ENDATION <br />While the conditional use permit would in itself present no problem, the <br />necessity for a variance does. Obviously, the fact that the building has <br />already been constructed complicates the variance issue. While we cannot <br />suggest an appropriate remedy at this time, we do not feel that a variance <br />is justified. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />Tom Sweeney <br />Ed Locke <br />Don Carley <br />Donald Gagne <br />2 <br />