#10 - Chavez Variance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Here, the home is branded with the term “large.” There is no stated criteria for what “large” is. Objectively speaking, the home will measure only 2,437 square feet while the houses near it in the Northstar development are approximately 2,400-2,900 square feet and other homes around the lake are approximately 3,100-4,000 square feet. In other words, it appears that this would be the smallest of homes in the vicinity by roughly 500-1,500 square feet. It is a modest, even small, single family home. Impervious surface is merely 6,155sf or 10.4% of OHW area. It’s significantly smaller than the existing houses in the Hamlet on Sunfish lake development to the north. B. Staff report; “a house is “not a necessity”. The staff report actually says “a house is not a necessity”. This is not the standard at all. C. The claim that the house could be “moved…further from the lake…or even using the property as an access to Sunfish Lake.” Not so. The house cannot be moved further from the lake and the surveying professionals have confirmed this. It is not reasonable to suggest that the lot would simply serve as an access to Sunfish Lake. If that was the case, then any small, lawfully preexisting lakeshore lot would be left to “serve as an access” to the lake. The Planner’s report speaks about later regulations and claims: “any future development is required adhere to them,”. Typically, that is not possible. Actually, this is the very reason for variances. If that claim were accurate, then most residential development on preexisting smaller lots would be foreclosed, precluded and impossible and it is the very reason for the variance and nonconforming/grandfathering status of a lot. IV. The Suggestion That The Owner Buy His Neighbors Property: The report states that “the applicants have the ability to acquire additional property by revising the outlot shape within Northstar to create a site design that requires minimal or no variances. The applicants may also change the location of the house or decrease its size. The applicants have not demonstrated any attempts to avoid variances based on the size or placement of the home or attempts to acquire more property.” None of that is accurate. First, it is not part of variance consideration to say that the applicant must go to a third-party and buy their property. If it was, then every variance that related to lot size or setbacks from adjoining structures would be subject to scrutiny about who was willing to sell or buy what and for what amount. But even if that inaccurate standard were applied, we can assure you that we have explored acquisition of additional property but it is not feasible under the circumstances.