My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:15:41 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:21 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
264
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, R A. <br />Attomeyi and AJvticn <br />Barbara Peterson, Mayor <br />City Council Members <br />July 3,2002 <br />Page 4 <br />was challenged by an adjacent landowner. In once again alTirming the granting of the variances, <br />the Nolan Court stated, <br />“In Rowell, this court squarely addressed the question and explained that the <br />statutory undue hardship requirement ‘does not mean that a property owner must <br />show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance.’ Rather, <br />the undue hardship standard requires a showing that the property owner would <br />like to use their property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by ordinance.” <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ consistent application of the interpretation it first announced <br />in 1989, provides much more flexibility to municipalities in granting variances. The apparently <br />rigid “undue hardship” standard is less onerous thim many think. Rather than proving that no <br />reasonable use at all exists for a property without the variance, under this standard a landowner <br />must only prove that the proposed use which is disallowed under the controlling regulations is <br />reasonable. <br />Revis has accepted that the result of the project is not precisely what was contemplated, <br />however, reasonableness and logic dictate that the project be accepted by the City as is, through <br />the granting of the variance, and amendment of the CUP as requested. The project has been <br />completed in a quality fashion. Great care has been taken to seed the disturbed areas. The <br />advanced growth of the new seeding is depicted in the photographs attached hereto. That new <br />coverage provides significant benefit to the nearby wetland through elimination of erosion and <br />runofT. Revis’ neighbors whose properties are directly impacted by the fill have consented to <br />this result and support it. <br />Revis has proposed a reasonable use of his property, one which significantly enhances the <br />relationship betw een his property and the adjacent wetland, through elimination of runoff and <br />erosion. The project has rendered the property significantly more safe. Your thoughtful <br />cc:Revis Stephenson 111 <br />Ron Peterson J.D./PWS Peterson Environmental Services <br />I™**-*---
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.