Laserfiche WebLink
PhTHRSKN .1 i:\V'.S M <br />C SS'OrjAL ASSOCIATION Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth <br />Pago 5 <br />July 26, 1984 <br />This is exactly the same reason as reason No. 2. A <br />response is expressed there. <br />7. <br />b) The granting of such variances would change the character <br />ol the immediate surrounding neighborhood. <br />This reason is absolutely untrue. Every lot in the <br />neighborhood has 60 feet of lakeshore. The proposed use <br />is not only totally consistent with the existing <br />neighborhood, it is also totally consistent with the <br />year-old plat which gives rise to the neighborhood, <br />intended use fits perfectly with the existing homes and <br />would be naturally compatible with tlie surrounding area. <br />90 <br />The <br />To really put the matter into proper context it is <br />noteworthy that the proposed homo would sit on a 19,500 <br />square foot lot. This is certainly an ample sized lot <br />for the construction of a home in accordance with the <br />plans filed by the Ericsons. This was clearly <br />contemplated to be an acceptable lot size when the land <br />was originally platted. <br />Approval of this variance and subdivision application would <br />be in conflict with the intent of the zoning code and <br />Comprehensive Plan of the city. <br />This general statement is hard to respond to because of its <br />lack of specificity. As discussed above, the proposed use <br />fits the applicable plat and matches well with the <br />neighborhood. As citizens of the City of Orono, the Ericsons <br />should be allowed to utilize this unique piece of property. <br />If the Orono ordinances must be construed, they must be done <br />so under the policy of being strictly construed against the <br />City and in favor of the jjroporty owner. See Frank*s Nursery <br />Sales, Inc, v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. <br />1980). Such a construction of the ordinances would indicate <br />that the variance request should be granted. <br />Also, since the subject property abutts the lake, the recent <br />policy of the Supreme Court regarding lakeshore property must <br />be followed. In Girvan v. County of LeSueur, 305 Minn. 175. <br />232 N.W.2d 88B (1975), it was held that lot size requirements <br />and front and rear yard requirements of zoning ordinances <br />must be applied to lakesliore property in a manner designed to <br />recognize the use and development of the property and to <br />avoid absurd results. In Girvan, the Court noted that <br />lakeshore property is entitled to special treatment due to <br />its unique character. <br />i i <br />I