07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono Planning Commission Page? June 13.2002 CUP). Where a permit request is denied, the applicant has the burden of persuading a reviewing court that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or are not supported by the record. Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757.763 (Minn. 1982). To establish the type of hardship required to qualify for a variance, a property owner must satisfy each part of the test laid out in the code, including that the property own^s plight is due to circuinstances unique to his property. The record here provides no support for the requested amendment to the CUP or for the variance. The Stephensons ’ plight is not due to any circumstance unique to their lot; rather, it is due to their own decision to deviate substantially from the approved contour plans in the existing CUP. Conclusion The application is patently without merit and must be rejected. For all the reasons stated herein. ait the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to protect the environment and the interests of adjacent property owners, including Mr. Chalfen. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the Planning Commission to adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1) any damage caused by the Stephensons ’ work to the wetland itself must be mitigated; (2) all slopes must not exceed the three to one slope, even if that means the Stephensons need to remove more fill than the City expects; and (3) ail fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and the side yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Eric H.tiafatz Christopher M. McGlincey Enclosures cc: Richard Chalfen Hugh M. Maynard, Esq. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Ronald Moorse, City Administrator 222MUvl [ i . . .A