Laserfiche WebLink
to have his property right protected regardless of the chain of <br />title of his and adjoining larids when it provides in subparagraph <br />(c) as follows: <br />"(c) the granting of the.. application is necessary <br />for the preservation and enjo;rn►ent of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant." <br />The applicant Rhode had a substantial property right <br />which should be protected even though his immediate predecessor <br />in title may not have had a property right entitling him. to <br />protection because he might conceivably have combined the Rhode <br />lot and the Becker lot to meet the size and width requirements <br />of the zoning ordinance. <br />The statute authorizing variances, M.S. f462.57 (6) <br />does not limit the granting of variances because an applicant's <br />predecessor in title could have avoLlide.d the hardship. <br />The Deckers second objection to the granting of the area <br />and width variances is the existence of the Lwo beach easements <br />Over the Rhode property. 11�iving caused these easements to be <br />created and having easements oii thE.ir own property necessary to <br />enable the enjoymei,, ui. these beach easements, the Keckers are <br />-9- <br />