2005-01-21 TLAURANCE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The only things that are relevant are the criteria for granting a shoreline setback, and thats hardship. And, they are the reasonable, and there are three of them. One of them is the reasonable use. The Planning Department came out with their recommendations and they, as we do, say that there is, that theyre not depriving the applicant of reasonable use. And he points out three things and these are the same points that I wanted to make. Very briefly, the applicant has submitted and received the building permit for a three-story single-family dwelling and an above ground spa on the subject property, which will be constructed outside of the shoreline setback area. Based on these permitted uses on the property, the applicant has not been deprived a reasonable use of the land. Then a second aspect is, another reason given by the applicant is that there have been 18 other developed lots within the subdivision that have constructed swimming pools previously, and that it would be a reasonable and accepted use of the property. The other developed lots that have received prior approval for the construction of a swimming pool were located outside of the shoreline setback area. And, as I said, parcel 42 is just not, not necessarily relevant.AnditsabsolutelynohardshipbecauseotherpeoplehavepoolsthatMr.Laurance should have a pool. Its a frivolous reason. And, finally, the applicant had options available to decrease the size of the first floor area and relocate the pool outside the shoreline setback area, rather than maximize the building area and locate the pool within the shoreline setback area. So, there was options and he, this is, did not have to, have to build a house so big as to force, if he want to have a pool to have it within the shoreline setback area. To me, oh, the other thing is the practicable alternative; and the practicable alternative is no pool or having built the house in a manner that the shoreline setback variance or the, building within a shoreline setback was not necessary. To me, whats at stake is the integrity of the shoreline setback variance process. To me, this is a frivolous request and apparently so does the Planning Department think it approp-inappropriate. If you grant this shoreline setback variance, based on this being a hardship, then you are, as I see it, undermining the meaning of hardship, and with it the bases of granting shoreline setback variances. Accordingly, I ask that you deny this request for a shoreline setback variance as it fails to meet the requirements necessary to grant such a variance. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. Commissioners? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Mr. Rothstein, I know you advocate for public interest issues and have done so for many years. If we take the legal issue aside for a minute, just for common sense feeling about this, and we take aside precedence issues and just look at whats there, is there any particular way the public interest would be harmed by building this pool at the place he wants to build his pool? Do you have any particular public interest you can see being harmed? ROTHSTEIN:Well, anytime you have a pool 5 feet from the public access thats impinging on public access; and the other places where they may have been close, we had no choice. It was a- the setback was 20 to 40 feet makai. But here we do have a choice and, therefore, to allow a pool so close to the wall almost as if you could trip and youd fall into the pool, thats how close it would practically be. So for that reason, that is the, that is the impact. 11