Laserfiche WebLink
40. The north side of the carport is supported by three wooden posts that are not imbedded into <br /> the soil or foundation,but rather rest on concrete block/pads., <br /> 41. The carport shares only one (1) exterior wall of the north side of the existing single story <br /> cottage,the other three(3) sides are open. <br /> 42. The floor of the carport consists of loose gravel. <br /> 43. The carport is not a"building"under the Bylaw as it is not enclosed on any of the other <br /> (three) sides and has no foundation: <br /> 44. The carport has never been used for human occupation and cannot be considered an . <br /> accessory building or dwelling under the Bylaw.:. <br /> 45. No portion thereof of the carport can be"torn down and rebuilt"as a dwelling under the <br /> Raze and Replace Bylaw because of its increased intensity and expansion.A new <br /> nonconformity is created that requires a Variance. <br /> 46. Plaintiffs submitted testimony that the proposal to convert the unenclosed carport to an <br /> elongated building and become part of the dwelling violates the Raze and Replace Bylaw , <br /> because the carport isnot part of the"pre-existing non-conforming dwelling." <br /> 47. The carport attached to the"pre-existing nonconforming dwelling"is an unenclosed <br /> structure and is not part of the existing occupied dwelling and therefore cannot be converted <br /> to a garage or dwelling unless it fully complies with the current dimensional setbacks. <br /> 48. The findings of the Decision concluded incorrectly that the Petitioners/Defendants met the <br /> conditions for a Special Permit. <br /> 49. The findings of the Decision incorrectly concluded that the Petitioners/Defendants met the <br /> requirements of the Raze and Replace Bylaw. <br /> 9 <br />