04-21-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Packet

Home Browse Search

the practical difficulties criteria whether the Board of Adjustment is deciding, or a district court is reviewing such a decision on appeal. Analysis of Facts and Recommendation The Board of Adjustment should deny this variance because: The proposed USE of the water-oriented accessory structure is NOT ALLOWED under the ordinance or under state law. Minn. Statute §462.357 states that the “board of appeals and adjustments ... may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” The city’s code states that a lockbox, flagpole, and pumphouse (essentially ancillary utility services) are the only uses allowed for water-oriented accessory structures. A 780 square foot structure with nearly eight-foot ceilings and a kitchen and bathroom is clearly a residential use. The city code does not allow a residential use only 14 feet from the water. The city cannot approve a use variance, and this application must be denied outright or be contrary to state law. There are NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES of the property not created by the property owner. Unique circumstances are physical characteristics of the land such as lot shape, lot dimension, and buildable area that are rare compared to other nearby shoreland properties. Personal matters unrelated to the property, such as family needs, design preferences, and financial considerations, are not unique circumstances. The application points to the difference in elevation between the principal structure and the water- oriented accessory structure as a unique circumstance. However, DNR’s review of nearby shoreland properties shows that such differences in elevation are common. There is nothing that makes this property physically unique from other similar shoreland properties to justify the significant deviations from the standards when others must comply. If this property is entitled to a variance, there is no reason why any other similar property would not be entitled to a variance. Granting a variance, therefore, undermines the purpose of shoreland regulations. In fact, the problem is due to design preferences. The property owner DOES NOT propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the water-oriented accessory structure provisions. This criterion is about what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance, NOT what is reasonable to the property owner. Variance requests should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the ordinance. The purpose of water-oriented accessory structure provisions under the city’s code are to provide shelter to ancillary utility services and placement of a flag. The purpose of WOAS under the shoreland rules are to provide storage for watercraft accessories or shelter for temporary human use – no water or sewer services permitted. The purpose of these two regulatory options is to limit the intensity and amount of time of human activity in the ecologically-sensitive shore impact zone. The applicant has not 128