10-17-2002 Planning Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

2. Are there exceptional circumstances unique to this property, which were not created by the landowner? 3. Can the variance be granted without upsetting the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 4. Can the variance be granted without altering the essential character of the surrounding area? State law would allow you to attach relevant conditions to the variance approval to mitigate any negative impacts that a variance from the Code would have. Staff Findings: This Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment and this Staff have not gone through a variance together. We are not sure what your tendency is towards interpreting hardship, and therefore we will try and outline a couple trains of thought you may wish to consider. • The applicant states that the home does not have a bathroom. Is reasonable use of the property denied if a bathroom is not allowed? If yes, can it then be said that the applicant has not had reasonable use of the property for the last fifty years? • The County found, on the Township's urging, that the need for a bathroom did not justify a variance to construct on the side of the house. Can the need for a bathroom justify an addition to the rear of the property, even though it is still within the setback? • It is clear that a bathroom would be allowed in a new structure that was built conforming to the setback, and so is the applicant's desire to not rebuild but simply add-on justification for a hardship? • What are the exceptional circumstances present on the property to justify a variance? Is the existence of a non-conforming structure considered exceptional even when there are a great many of them along the lake? • If the land owner built the cabin or bought the cabin in its present state, can it be said that the location of the existing cabin is an exception circumstance not created by the landowner? (Note: Minnesota courts have interpreted"created"to also include structures purchased or transferred to different ownership.) • The purpose and intent of the Ordinance is to protect the water quality, protect shoreline and lake habitat and improve the lakeshore aesthetics. Is extending the r„. life of this structure by allowing it to be expanded and improved consistent with the intentions of the Ordinance? A strict interpretation of the Ordinance would lead you to the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant has used the property for over fifty years. There is no hardship as reasonable use of the property is not denied. 2. Lack of a bathroom is not a hardship. 3. There is nothing that is keeping the applicant from internally remodeling the structure to add a bathroom. 4. There is nothing prohibiting the applicant from moving the existing structure to conform to the setback or constructing a new structure behind the setback.