Laserfiche WebLink
I variance for hardship <br />by any persons presently <br />The court approved the <br />>t the right to a vari­ <br />ed be, as the trial court <br />>t would deprive the <br />’t seems to have been <br />ihich could not be taken <br />ss. This is an attribute <br />not be affected by the <br />arcel, except where <br />suit as in Dedering, <br />ng to variances <br />ht of a present owner <br />less of the chain of <br />vides in aubparagrapb <br />ation is necessary <br />nt of a substantial <br />ntial piiperty right <br />nnicdiate predecessor <br />entitling him to <br />e combined the Rhode <br />width requirements <br />8. M.S. 5A62.57 (6) <br />;ausc an applicant's <br />i hardship. <br />estopped ccpiUably from asserting that those two easements bar <br />the use of the Rhode property for a residence. <br />Either these easements ai’c invalid as not permitted by <br />• • <br />the zoning code which was what the council concluded, or their <br />existence plus the addition of the Rhode house does not violate <br />the code. If either proposition is sound, then the Beckers' <br />contention is not sustainable. In any evetJt, the council- could <br />have granted a zoning variance to permit the co-existence of <br />the easements and the Rhode residence since otherwise the Rhode <br />property would be without value and the Becker-created easements <br />would establish an undue hardship Justifying the variance. <br />There being no sound legal objection to the granting of <br />the size and width variance, those variances were properly <br />granted because otherwise Rhode would be deprived of any use <br />of his property as was ruled In Curi*y v. Young, (1969) 285 Minn. <br />387, 173 N.W.(2) <br />The Beckers object to the granting of the setback variance <br />0 <br />Claiming that there is no undue hardship which Justifies this <br />variance. They seem to Insist that a setback variance may be <br />Justified only when necessary to make property buildable as <br />urged at page 11 of Plaintiffs' post-trial brief. <br />Merriam Park Community Council v. McDonough, (1973) 297 <br />Minn. 210 N.W.(2) 4l6, clearly establishes that there is no <br />need to prove that land will be valueless unless variances <br />are r.ranted as to zoning setback and other requirements. The <br />1 <br />court there said: <br />•» <br />"riaintiffs corjtend that the wordr. of Minn. -jt. <br />462.357, subd. 6, require that the undue hard­ <br />ship must arise from clrc'umr.tanees unL<iue to <br />the property Hsclf - not the owner, surround­ <br />ing neighborhoo'l, economic fonslblllty, or like <br />elements... If this line of reasoning is followed. <br />:he granting of the area