Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />The Building Inspector had noticed the construction when it was almost <br />completed and had informed the workers that it was in violation of the <br />ordinance. A permit was applied for and turned down due to the improper <br />set back from the front property line. <br />Mrs. Clem further stated that the carport represented an investment of $1900. <br />The Board was then advised that if the variance is approved, a permit will <br />be issued for the construction. If it is denied, the construction would <br />have to be cut back to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. <br />There was no one else in attendance to speak for or against the petition <br />and following discussion, Mr. Hinds made a motion to allow the variance <br />with the stipulation that the carport can never be enclosed and to require <br />that a restriction be filed on this lot to insure that no subsequent owner <br />can enclose the carport. Mr. Walker seconded the motion which carried, <br />four votes for and one vote against. <br />The Board then recommended that consideration be given to requiring <br />carpenters and brick layers to obtain permits before doing any work. <br />With no further business to consider, the meeting was adjourned. <br />t cr N. McCollum <br />etary Ex- Officio <br />