My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2000-07-10 Regular Meeting
LaPorte
>
.Minutes
>
City Council
>
2000's
>
2000
>
2000-07-10 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:07:13 PM
Creation date
7/31/2025 10:55:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
7/10/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
~. • • <br />On Monday, July 3rd, Ron received a call from Mr. Lanor at 10:00 a.m. and was told <br />that after further review of the submitted plans, work had to stop and the location of <br />the accessory building had to be changed because (even though garages can go six <br />feet from the property line) accessory buildings had to be thirty feet from the property <br />line and our building was about ten feet to close! Keep in mind that the pipeline <br />running through the middle of the property limits our building space. A meeting was <br />set for 2:00 p.m. to discuss "alternatives" to moving the proposed building. No <br />agreement could be reached so Ron filed a residential variance request in hopes that <br />we could resolve this matter without having to remove what had already been put <br />into place. We were told that the City Council had to approve all variance requests. <br />Therefore, we are requesting that the City Council grant a variance to us for the <br />setback requirement of thirty feet. We were given permission to begin the work so in <br />an act of good faith, we spent a lot of money and performed back breaking labor in an <br />effort to get the process rolling. This was PRIOR to being notified that "after further <br />review" the plans were actually "not acceptable". <br />We will be glad to meet with any council members who are interested and show them <br />the planned improvements and how this variance will not impact anyone. As a <br />matter of fact, throughout the area you can see many deviations from City code - <br />some too new to be "grandfathered". We are willing to conform to city requirements <br />on any further construction but in the case of the accessory building, we honestly <br />feel we were led to believe our plan was fine, began construction and told "after the <br />fact" that our plan required changes. <br />Thank you for your time and consideration on our behalf. We truly believe that we <br />have acted in good faith and have taken the word of City officials in good faith. <br />Regardless of the additional expense and labor involved in moving the building, the <br />pipeline presents another dilemma if are required to move it. <br />Should you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to give <br />either one of us a call at the numbers listed above. <br />Sincerely, <br />Ron and Rhonda Burrage <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.