Laserfiche WebLink
JUN-2lt!.-• 17:33 ID: I TEi. SD:6l2 5“l-7?:-:^rilZa Pc£ <br />Mr. Kevin Stounton <br />Me* Karen Cole <br />June A, 1993 <br />Pe^e 4 <br />.«-rlfloallv told that if they wieh to sell their property, all <br />•t'T.iic^ureB on ell four lote would have to be eeld ae a <br />VSiqlm parcel. Again, thie property involved im <br />^ The variance would have created a problem with the <br />Individual eeptio ayeteno conetrueted in reeldential areas. The <br />iS kffi -tated that the tvr lots with the saasonal cabin <br />had^a ^reasonable use" under the existing .i***^^®could continuo to b« U96d a ooaoonal cabin* Tha <br />RealoS^Lot doee not hev# an alternative reasonable use. Use ae a <br />vacant lot is not a reasonable use/ <br />Tue threshold issus regarding the Reaien Lot is, (i) what is an <br />?ff.rnatlve "rsasonablo use"? A reasonable use is a use ae <br />^arerained under the existing ordinance. The Minnesota Courts <br />thJt thr?easonable uee requirement does not mean that <br />^ S!.t «». W c«not b. put to «*_<*•« <br />SlSoSt a^vari.nc. KOTtU T. i9VA <br />917, 922 (Minn. App. 1989). SaCTY 1^3 N.W.2d 410 <br />(Minn. 1949). <br />If tho City at orono war. to dotaruin. that tba u.a <br />iGbaSSnSard lot .. an .nlargad yard la a <br />there would be no reason to grant any Si*S4aeantip-onlrtv that is substandard could always be sold to an adlacent!sss:sji;r“‘5hi;. -ouw n.v.r w <br />2««a putting proparty to - ua. tea at^no <br />ordinance other than simply ae « vacant place af property. <br />in currr, an individual owned all of a large P®^°®i<;;jnrS2" ^ ’ He conveyed off one parcel of the Property to oneAv>t*r* Heir *'f the property to a eec'ind purchaser# Ultimately <br />S! 5ic«.I SI pS?Sh«;r of beta parcal# and eynad ttathe You^s younge sought to retransfer the <br />Slpalty aftor aavarance S S”.?! “aSl-cao-. <br />andjwpa of toa^ona^P«eal^^ tba <br />varlanea hlld tBat avan though tba granting <br />55“Sr^;rwS*S4l*“orb 0 narda^P on o«.r