Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.3 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />back as required by the permits, the court concluded that it violated the <br />permits' setback requirements. <br />Olsen and Mason had also argued that they should not have to re- <br />move the house as ordered by the lower court. They contended that the <br />house could be completed in its current location without injury to the <br />historical character of the city through landscape design and an addition <br />of a. shed roof to the first floor fa<;ade. The court disagreed finding the <br />s].lggested "corrections" would not actually correct the permit violations <br />regarding setbacks and overall structure of the house. fudeed, said the <br />court, Olsen and Mason's "suggestion of appending a shed roof addition <br />to the first floor would only exacerbate the existing violations by reduc- <br />. ing the distance between the outer edge of the house and the lot line.~' <br />The court affirmed the lower court's order that Olsen and Mason stop <br />further construction on the house and remove the structure and re-con- <br />tour the property. ' <br /> <br />See also: Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp., 319 Mont. 132, 82 P.3d <br />912 (2003). <br /> <br />Case Note: On appeal, Olsen and Mason had also contended that <br />the City should have granted them a variance excusing the building <br />violations, rather than seeking an injunction. The court disagreed, <br />noting that Olsen and Mason never requested that the City grant a <br />variance or otherwise amend the permits to conform to the building <br />that was actually constructed. Nor did they present any authority <br />for the idea that the City had an obligation to consider a variance <br />on its own initiative. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />102 <br />