Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />ATTACHMENT 2 <br />October 24, 2008 <br />Board of Appeal and Adjustments, care of: <br />Mr. Michael Grochala, Community Development Director <br />The City of Lino Lakes <br />600 Town Center Parkway <br />Lino Lakes, MN 55014 <br />RE: Appeal to Board of Appeals and Adjustments <br />related to interpretation of accessory structure definition <br />2120 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes <br />Dear Members of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments: <br />Thank you for your time to make a decision related to an interpretation of what is an <br />accessory building in the city code. We believe we are negatively impacted by staffs gray <br />interpretation of what is and what is not an accessory building related to the addition plans <br />of our next -door neighbor. <br />For ease of understanding this issue, we are asking staff to attach a copy of the proposed <br />addition. It includes not only a garage addition which would make the total garage area <br />3,597 s.f., only 3 s.f. smaller than the maximum accessory building size allowed by zoning <br />code, but also a large indoor sport court addition and outside swimming pool. All the mass <br />of the additions and swimming pool are located just about as close to our side yard as <br />legally allowed in the side yard setback requirements. Both our lot and our neighbor's lot <br />range from 3.5 to 4.5 acres in size. We believe that the zoning code prevents a large <br />amount of accessory buildings and structures for a reason, and that is to insure that a <br />significant amount of the lot is not used for uses other than principal uses and also for <br />preservation of development conformity on lots, as well as preservation of related real <br />estate value. Simply put, the zoning ordinance would not limit the size of accessory <br />buildings and structures unless there was a valid reason. <br />We will detail sections of the zoning ordinance which staff has viewed and has <br />administratively determined that the indoor sport court is not an accessory building, and <br />we will show how we feel that the literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance is contrary <br />to staffs opinion. <br />