Laserfiche WebLink
FROM LEONARD STREET AKD OEINARD <br />BMa. Janice J. Giiodlacb <br />August 13.2004 <br />P«g02 <br />;MCN; 8.16’04 9:20/Sr. 9:19/N0.426I040634 ? 3 <br />Non-eoafa^ing <br />As we UiicuMed, the MimiesoU legislature recently aroended state law concerning non* <br />confoiming rtroctunt.* Minn. Stat. § 462.357. subd. 1(e). as amended, provides: <br />**Any nooconfbnnity. iachiding the lawftil use or occupation of land or premises esixting <br />at the tima of the adoption of an additional control unte this chapter, may be continued, <br />tyiy^ag through repair, replacement, restoration, tnaintenancc. or improvement but not <br />including expansion, unless: <br />(1) the nonconfonnity or occupancy » ducontinued for a period of more than <br />one year, or <br />(2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of <br />greater than SO percent of its miiket value, and no building permit has <br />been applied within 180 days of when the property is damaged.” <br />Based on Miim. Stal $ 462.357. subd 1(e). it is my opinion that Mr. MacDonald does not need a <br />variance because he repaired or maintained the non-coofonnmg structure.^ It is imporuni to <br />recognize that the non-confoimity, the 8.4 setback from the side yard, did not mcrease <br />OtherwiK. the gangc cocnpUcs with all applicable zoning requirements. Accordingly. I <br />rcsjpoctfolly submit that Mr. MacDonald docs not need a variance and only needs to apply for a <br />building permit <br />ViriiDCC <br />If the City were to detemiiae that Mr. MacDonald’s nacds lo apply for a varunce, it is clear that <br />Mr. MauDunaU has met the luiduo hardship standard. ’The statutory undue hardship <br />requirement does not mean that a propcity owner must show that the land cannot be put to any <br />reasonable use without the variance. Rate, the undue hardahip standard requires a showing that <br />the property owner would like to uk their pioperiy an a rcasotele manner that is prohibited by <br />the ordinance.** Noland v. City of Eden frairie. 610N.W.2d 697.701 (Minn.Ci.App 2000). <br />By iu very nature, a vanaoce necessarily requires a dqMtture from the City's ordinance. Here, <br />the depaituie is 1.6 foct. To datennina whate tha variance is reasonable and is in keeping with <br />the spint and inleai of lha erdmaoce. I raepactfoUy suhinit that the Planning Commission should <br />consider the peopoaed use and the extent of tha varimcc requesL <br />ihwjvcsdlimibisiahoiuyiatrpilrtibswIsoJnMybsMSsd. Ths Msmcipsl PUaeiag Act emtn • <br />SMigIs. MWliaoBpiiicsdweUMtippttiUBanciltos. Miaa. Snt 1442.3SM6S. UiUiaaoMS muct campty with <br />UwiubslimivsaBdF«»4wslwqMiwiUHrtiof»tsct ggeMsm SOL14S2 IS|.r7] <iich. ihs City'x <br />leguimew nd nang dwkiuas amt cooply wM dM iskvsai «iiiii8(>) <br />, Mian te 1462JS7. ste l(s) pnwite‘te Mnateuly "*y be CMtetd. <br />AccatdiBgly..Nh.MwfViaald Indite right tpfqwkBrnsnntiinhu <br />pwpwtywfte«cfwh>thotteoldorcarmuvwiiooofMiaa.Snt t462JS7.wbd. !(•) applies. ladihacaic. <br />prapwiy ««Mis an aflowsd ta rspatr or msinUia iIm opiiamliMaiiiig suiiclurr. <br />2M«n«i