Laserfiche WebLink
substantial night of the applicant. <br />- the granting of the proposed variance will notin any way <br />impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general <br />welfare. <br />- the granting of the proposed variance will not be con'- to <br />the intent of the comprehensive land use, planning or <br />code. <br />- the granting of such variance will not merely serve as <br />convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to to alleviate <br />demonstrable hardships or difficulties. <br />2. 827 Williams - variance granted <br />- existing sewer and water connections. <br />- no additional land available to be combined with the property. <br />- applicant revised original hardcover proposal. <br />J.; �' — 1a2 � 6iv cep c � s be �+ ► e� � . <br />3. 912 Hedlund - vari.anc granted <br />.22 acre lot (lot half i LR1B) <br />municipal sewer serves the property, but no water. Applicant <br />had been forewarned that the lot may be unbuildable prior to its <br />purchase in 1981 as tax -forfeited lands <br />- property could be combined with adjacent properties to the east <br />or south, both of which are substandard in the area. <br />4.� 2014 Beldon/Moline - variance denied <br />- ttie uilding which was removed was required to be removed <br />because it was dilapidated and hazardous and was not removed <br />merely to appease the planning commission, and because the <br />building was vacant for a great many years, there are no <br />"grandfather" rights to build on the property and this is not a <br />"taking" of property. <br />- variances of the number and magnitude requested have not been <br />previously granted for any property in the LR-IC zoning district <br />in contemporary times. The coun:il finds that denial of the <br />variances is consistent with previous council action and does not <br />deny applicant equal treatment and protection under the law. <br />- the property does not conform to the current development <br />pattern of the neighborhood. <br />- the granting of the variance for the proposed development would <br />set and adverse precedent in the city. <br />- the intent of applicant is contrary to the letter and intent of <br />the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br />- the amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be <br />diminished by adding the structure on this substandard lot <br />- the values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected <br />- the proposed variance would have an adverse affect upon the <br />health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons <br />outlined herein <br />III. STATUTES,'ORDINANCES/COURT CASES <br />Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 394.36 ent4tled "Non - <br />Conformities" states subdivision 1. Any ncir rr,nf.-, - • - including <br />L <br />