Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

estop) -d vcictl tably from asserting that these two easements bar the use of the Rhode property l'or a residence. Either these easements are invalid as not permitted by the zoning code which was what the council concluded, or their existence plus the addition of the Rhode house does riot violate the code. If either proposition is sound, then the Beckers' contention is not sustainable. In any event, the council•could have granted a zoning variance to permit Lite co -existence of th^ easements and the Rhode residence since otherwise the Rhode property would be without value and the Becker -created easements would establish an undue hardship justifying* the variance. There being no sound legal objection to the granting of the size and width variance, those variances were properly granted because otherwise Rhode would be deprived of any use of his property as was ruled in Curry v. Young, (1969) 285 Minn. 387, 173 H.W.(2) 410. The Beckers object to the granting of the se.4ack variance claiming that there 13 tlo undue hardship which justifies this variance. They seers to insist that a setback var•lance may be justified only when necessary to make property buildable as urged at page 11 of Plair►tii'fs' lost -trial br•iel'. Merriam Park Community Council v. HcUonoulh, (1973) 297 Minn. 210 W.W. (2) 416, clearly establishers that there ir• no reed to prove that land will be: valueless un,-,ss variances nr•- ri-anted as to zoning setback and other requirements. The court there sa► ld : 0 "PI altitll'1':: .,nil thattit(• wurii: (if' Minn. St,. 462. 3'.)7, suhd. (,, t— qu.1 re that t ho mi,ho, h;ivd- shil) must 1'1'um unl'1,1.• t„ the 11C0 tho• (1wni'1•, tiU►'t `Und- tni� n(.•irlib-Hi-1`•1, ••c—nciml fe nathi I lty, or Ilk - elements ... ! t' e.hta line c)1' reasunliw, i:. followed,