My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2106 LOMBARD AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
LOMBARD AVE
>
2106
>
2106 LOMBARD AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2017 5:30:16 PM
Creation date
2/17/2017 5:29:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
LOMBARD AVE
Street Number
2106
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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).
View images
View plain text
II�ir. IS�le saicl ��;or;; cii ti�� proposed dupl.e:ti hud started about one <br /> year ago and that he had spent considerable amounts of maney on <br /> ' the project to date. Also there had been a firc on the hack <br /> portion of the nouse before he had purchased the property and his <br /> company liad improved the initial appearance of the house. <br /> �' I�r. Ha1e stated that at the time he applied f.or a building permit • <br /> : to remociel that structure , he submitted plans showing this to Ue a <br /> duplex. Secause the various Ci_ty departments gave their approval. , <br /> � he assumed that they knew it was a duplex also. • <br /> I�ir. Shocl;ey responded that �ahen Idr. I�al.e' s permit application ca�ne , <br /> to the Y].anning Division it caas revien�ed in light of the Zoning <br /> Code. On the application under "occupancy" the applicant had <br /> written the �•:ork "Residents (SIC) " . `Phe person reviewing the <br /> aprlication assu:ned this to mean single family residence and the <br /> application was ;pproved. <br /> I,1r . Champion asY.=_d I•ir. Iiale why, as a cor�tractor, Dir. Hale had <br /> not been familar with the codes regardinc minimum lot size . <br /> Idr. Hale respondad that because the City had approved the project , <br /> he assumed that ne was complying with the Codes . <br /> There �aas no obj °ction from the audience . <br /> After visual oUs �r.vation of the subjecc property and considering <br /> all the facts it was moved by Mr. Champion, seconded by t�ir. <br /> Ingram anci unani :iously carried to deny tha applicants request for <br /> the follor�ing relsons : <br /> 1. There :re no er.ceptional circumatances warranting <br /> a vari�ince. <br /> 2. The pr<�perty rights of the indi•�idual have not been <br /> denied as the building can func=ion economically as <br /> a sing:_e family dwe.11ing. <br /> A heariny was he:.d on the application of iiverett Community College , <br /> BO1 [4etmore, Fve�'ett, for a variance from Sec. 15 . 04 .190 , E.C.C. <br /> (Zoning Code) , R- 2 , Single Family Iligh Pensity Residence Zone, <br /> Subsection �, La�:d�caping and Suriacing, Paragraph 5 for permission <br /> to use crushed ruc}: rather than Asphalt or P .C, concrete on the <br /> proposed parking lot. <br /> Lcts 1 tl:rough 9 and Lots 26 through 3�, , Blcck 179 , Swal�•:ell <br /> 4th Add. <br /> Lots 9 through 2l , IIloc}: 179 , Hailey Addition, plus vacated street <br /> ac'.jacent thereto, <br /> IIcttaeen Lombard end OzY.es and betereen 9�:h and lOth Streets. ; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.