10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINu,rEs OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEE,rING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984. PAGE 9 Desyl Peterson stated that courts have basically said 1829 LONIE FISK that you are supposed to grant variances to substandard lots where to do otherwise would prohibit any value to the property. Peterson stated this is generally true. Peterson state6 that this does not apply here because this is tax forfeit property. Peterson stated the original owner gave up that right and the original investment is gone. Peterson stated that this is a new applicant who bought the property as tax forfeit- and assumes the risk that this property is substandard and cannot be built on. Peterson stated that it is irrelevant what the staff told him. Peterson stated that this variance is different from all the other variances because it is tax forfeit. Desyl Peterson stated it appears that this props ty was in common ownership with the adjacent property. Peterson stated that the MN Supreme Court has held that when two lots are in common ownership, at any point after the adoption of the zoning ordinance, then those two lots hav- to be combined to make one lot that is closer if not exceeding the zoning standards. Desyl Peterson stated that the Orono zoning code used to say if there was a non -conforming structure and it was destroyed, then it could not be rebuilt if not more than the 58 percent of the assessed market value. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that we are not dealing with a ►ion -conforming use or structure in this case, the code referred to by Peterson is not applicable. Peterson stated no, that a non -conforming use not only applies to the use itself but also to setbacks. Peterson stated that the tax forfeit is important in this case. Garth Coller, Fisk's attorney, addressed Ron. Batty's remarks. Culle► stated burden of proof has been :net in this instance as to why the lot conforms. Coller stated it is not against the health, safety, and welfare, but helps the health, safety, and welfare. Coller stated the burden of proof, and it is a balancing test that the courts give, if there is no adverse effect to the health, safety and welfare and there is some benefit to the health, safety, and welfare and the option is to deny the use of residential property for any use at all, that yes the burden of proof shifts over. Coller stated the burden of proof is on the neighbors, staff, and Council to come up with a negative declaration that imposes a greater degree of hardship to the health, safety and welfare than it would benefit it.