Laserfiche WebLink
November 3, 1976 Page 8 <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that the public should be aware that <br />the Council is thinking in terms of a two year program or longer <br />and ask if they would let the Council know what their ideas are. <br />Mayor Pickar agreed with this suggestion. <br />ATTORNEY MEYER'S REPORT Attorney Meyers read Legal Opinion 76 -4 <br />to the Council regarding the construction of the garage on an <br />undeveloped lot. The legal opinion deals with the question of <br />whether or not the building inspector can deny a request for the <br />construction of a private garage on an undeveloped lot where there <br />is no principle structure. Attorney Meyers stated that a garage <br />is strictly an accessory use subordinate to the principle structure <br />and that the City would not be found to be acting arbitrarily by <br />refusing the issuance of a building permit for the construction <br />of a garage building prior to a building permit for the principle <br />structure. <br />Mr. Hugh Dickenson, 8068 Eastwood, stated that he has had a home <br />on one lot since 1959. In 1962 he bought the other lot. He <br />applied for a garage permit and was told it was refused. He <br />stated he has lost three days of work trying to get something <br />done. He said he has a nice home and keeps the grass cut and <br />looking nice. Mr. Dickenson explained he wants the garage to <br />put his cars, lawn mower and other equipment in. <br />Attorney Meyers stated he felt the City can refuse to issue a <br />building permit and he feels the courts will uphold the City in <br />this decision. <br />Mr. Dickenson stated that one of the members on the Planning <br />Commission has what he is requesting and asked why his request <br />is being denied. "Mayor Pickar stated that the other situation <br />may only involve one lot. <br />Mr. Dickenson stated that the Council is stopping the building of <br />a home on this other lot and is trying to force him to combine <br />the two lots, which would cost $400. Mr. Dickenson stated he has <br />paid taxes on both lots and has paid all of the assessments. This <br />property could be used for a house later and he sees no reason why <br />he can't be allowed to build a garage on it. He stated he does <br />not think the ordinance applies to this type of case. Mr. Dickenson <br />stated there is a three car garage on Red Oak Drive where a variance <br />was given on the side property line. Mr. Dickenson said he had to <br />pay $50 for that legal opinion from the Attorney. He said he has <br />planted trees and shrubs on the other lot and keeps it looking nice. <br />Mayor Pickar stated that if only one lot was involved he could <br />have a garage and asked why qtr. Dickenson would sell the lot <br />with the garage on it. <br />