My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-238
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 201-300
>
VN-238
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 4:44:31 AM
Creation date
3/13/2007 12:38:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
September 24, 1984- <br />Ms. Brenda Krueger <br />City Planner <br />City of New Brighton <br />803 5th Ave. N.W. <br />New Brighton, Mn 55112 <br />Dear Brenda: <br />We apologize for not responding to you sooner but it was not my impression <br />that this issue was so urgent. <br />In our meeting in August and your letter in September, you stated that <br />we needed a building, permit to replace our old deck and that the location <br />of the new deck probably did not meet the new building code guidelines <br />and that consequently would need to apply fora variance. <br />Please accept this letter with enclosures as our application for a Variance <br />for the deck at our house. The circumstances which are unique and unusual <br />surrounding this issue are as follows: <br />1. We purchased our home at 1596 28th Ave. N.W. in New Brighton <br />in March of 1977 with a deck already constructed in the same location. <br />It is my understanding that this deck was built in 1969. <br />2. Due to normal wear and tear of the weather and the fact that the <br />lumber used at that time was not treated, the deck began looking <br />terrible and was practically falling down. So, in July of 1984, I <br />tore it down and reconstructed it with treated lumber in order to <br />improve the appearance of the property and the neighborhood. <br />3. After spending a week of vacation time to reconstruct this deck <br />and not to mention the expense involved, we feel it would cause undue <br />hardship to be forced to tear it up, especially considering the fact <br />that the old deck was in the exact same location on our property line <br />for at least 15 years and nothing was ever said. Our assumption was <br />that the previous .owners had certainly received a permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.