Laserfiche WebLink
The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br />ordinance; <br />Applicants' response: The proposed improvements are reasonable uses of a lakeshore property. Expanding the existing <br />shed provides adequate space to safely store water -oriented equipment, preventing shoreline clutter. Replacing the <br />deteriorating deck ensures safe enjoyment of the property while aligning with typical residential lakeshore uses. <br />The property already contains a permitted 100 sf water -oriented structure that serves the intended purpose <br />of storing lake -related equipment. The applicant also has sufficient space elsewhere on the property to <br />construct additional storage structures that meet ordinance requirements. The desire for additional <br />convenience or larger storage capacity does not constitute a practical difficulty. Therefore, the request does <br />not represent a reasonable use that is otherwise prohibited by the ordinance. <br />4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not a consequence of the <br />petition's own action or inaction; and <br />Applicants' response: The property's unique site conditions —including the shoreline location, wetlands, and <br />easements —limit alternative placement of both the shed addition and the deck. These constraints create practical <br />difficulties in meeting zoning requirements while still allowing safe and reasonable use of the property. The request is <br />not the result of actions or inactions by the property owners. <br />There are no circumstances unique to the property that have created a hardship. The lot is a standard <br />lakeshore parcel with adequate buildable area for compliant accessory structures outside the shore impact <br />zone. The request results from the applicant's desire for additional space, which is a self-created condition, <br />not a hardship. <br />5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />Applicants' response: The requested variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Nearby <br />lakeshore properties commonly have decks and small water -oriented storage structures. The proposed improvements <br />are modest in scale, consistent with surrounding properties, and will preserve the residential and recreational nature of <br />the lakeshore. <br />Granting the variance would permit a structure over one and a half times the size allowed within proximity to <br />the lake, setting a precedent inconsistent with surrounding lakeshore development patterns. Approval would <br />alter the essential character of the locality by introducing a more intensive level of lakeshore development <br />than intended by ordinance. <br />Findings <br />Staff find that the requested variance does not meet the required criteria for approval. There is no <br />demonstrated hardship or unique property condition that justifies exceeding the allowed size for a water - <br />oriented structure. The property already benefits from a permitted structure that serves the intended <br />purpose, and expanding it would conflict with the intent of the ordinance to protect lakeshore character and <br />water qua <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br />Page 295 of 447 <br />