06-23-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA

Browse Search

713-590-0380 CRL DIVE INT'L. 350 P05/07 JUL 13 '94 09:18 City of LaPorte June 15. 1994 Page 2 It. is my desire to upgrade the existing structure through replacement in a manner that preserves the compound feel, as well as the waterfront architecturnl feel of the property. Ideally I I would like to put a new house on the same site. After:receiving the official survey of the property, I have been told that to build on the existing site is in violation of the setback laws. The.existing house is 1 '9ft from the official lot line and 6'9" from the original lot line which is still the existing fence line. The 5' between the lot line and the fence was given to the city as an easement"fOr a septic ta.i1.k out-fall. around"1923. The septic t.ankS and 'easement are 'no longer used. I have retained Henicke Surveying Company to research and verify this; however. I am . not sure how long it may take since the records are old and have been passed from the county to the city at least once. In 1963, there was some sort of legal proceedings regarding the property involving the fanner owner, Karl Johnson, represente9 by Mr. John Kibler. At that time, there was a determination made that the St did indeed belong to the City of I..aPorte; however, directions were given to Mr. 1ohnson to continue to treat the 5' in question as part of hls lot. I am in the process of tIying to locate the documentation of this event. , To reposition the new house to be in full compliance with the setback laws as written for a street and with full regard to the official lot line is undesirable both fOf me and I believe for the community . 1. The new position would place the house 15' from the fence resulting in a loss of a majority of the deck area, a mature hedge and at least one mature tree. 2. The compound feel of the property would be lost. The nature of this property, in my opinion enhances the neighborhood. To detract from this detracts from the ultimate. value of the property and indirectly the mrrounding properties. 3. The street along this lot dead ends into the bay and the driveway for this lot is the only thing the street provides access for other than occasi.onal parking for people fishing. 4. The existing structure has been in the position in question for seventy years and has never been an inconvenience to the community. 5. Due to the mature landscaping, neither the existing structure nOf the proposed structure is even very visible from the street.