Laserfiche WebLink
FR: 1'?!32 ID: ICEFSZN =EFNDTi#2c--PI TE_ NC:Fl2 “Tl-773.: <br />Hr. Kovin Staunton <br />Ha. Karen Col« <br />June 4/ 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />hArdshiT}. Hr. Hedlund acquired a Bubatandard lot that <br />ueid for bulXdlnsr a eingla family noma, xye^lot^waa^tvlce afl^ <br />SB anv surrounding adjacent lot. Hr. Hedlund did not read <br />or examine the Maplewood ordinances prior to J*" <br />BOMci^ioallv noted that tho city of Maplewood did not contest the <br />SidL Sa^dship oxiBted.'^ Tho co^'rt noted that without an <br />iltl wiince the substandard Hedlund could not bo put to ajnSonaSiruSer implicit in this stateaent is that ^e "fale" of <br />ths lot to an adjacent lot was not a ''reasonable use . <br />variance denial was upheld because mr. Hedlund had created his <br />undue hardship* <br />\a T indicated in my prior correspondence of May 21r 1953, Iff»; Shr».ri«oS ct wn9 m ntfin.H?5 ?d !Ib (Klniir W. 1^?); ireempIatBly dlstlnguiababie from <br />the Remien Lot. <br />M V citv of TiS^e Sleo. 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. App. <br />iSeJ^^ie^lia® distinguishable from the Remi^ Lot, TOe applicant <br />in ceotle Design was denied a Variance Application because of the <br />iLgJ^Sd^J^e ” fiances requeeted. The unde^ying re^on <br />ssi=s^";S““:!.!SSj'hS:s«r*s=rsi^ss:v “s^s.':irJrKr!..