07-21-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! In rulinii that these hardship rindiiiGS were adequate to 0 Justify the variances the court said: "There was substantial evidence in this case that sufficient practical difficulties existed to Justify varylnG the provisions of the code as ordered by the city council. Likewise, there was a sufficient showing to Justify the conclusion by the city council and the court below that the variances granted were • in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and that the public health, safety, and general welfare were secured and substantial Justice was done. Thus, we need only consider whether 5*162.357, subd. 6, prohibits granting the subject variances. The trial court found that defen- datjt would suffer undue hardship if the literal pro visions of the zoning ordinance were strictly enforced. The statute provides that property owners may request variances where .strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship 'because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.* The trial court held that the evidence Justified a determination that if the variances were not granted defendant would suffer undue hardship because of uni que circumstances not reflective of conditions gen eral to the neighborhood." The hardships in Merriam Park were based on economics, rea sonableness and practicality. Similar hardships exist to Justify the Rhode variance as to setback. ft The Beckers object to the council's Interpretation of the setback ordinance as not forbidding the approved house location * when the Beckers, and not the Lauers .object to that location. That ordinance (Section 3*<.201)provides: "The setback from the shoreline for lakeshoi’e lots shall be at least seventy-five feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline tlian the average distance from the shoreline of existing resi dence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots." Since this setback limitation applies only to "lakeshore lots", the council could properly construe it as being intend ed to protect the sight line of existing residences to the lake. The council's interpretation of its own ordinance should •I be given great weight under well-recognized principles of admini strative law 9 So l.n'-.ernreted the ordinance can be deemed not to pro hibit the approved Rhode house location inasmuch as the Lauers are the only nearby neighbors adversely affected by the location and they want the house to be ahead of Line A-A. The Beckers' sight line is not adversely affected by the approved location. '' T >- 12 - • 'I