Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in ruIitir, that these harclrli ip fin i i m-, s were adequate to justify the variance the court said: "There was substantial evidence in this case that sufficient. practical difficulties existed to justify varying the provisions or the cede as ordered by the city council. Likewise, there yr,,s a sufficient showing to Justify the conclusion by the city council and the court below that the varl ance:: granted were in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and that the public health, safety, and eener•al wee fare were :;ecured and substant: al justice was done. Thus, we need only consider whether 5462.357, subd. 6, prohibits granting the subject varlaner-s. The trial court round that defen- dant: would suffer undue hardship if' the literal pro- visions of the zoning or•linance were strictly enforcer'. The ^tatuto provides that, property ownrr !,. may re!picat variances where strict enf'oreemerrt of the provisions would cause undue hardship 'because or circumstances unique to the Individual property under cerisideration.' The trial court held that the evidence Justif'ed a determination that if the variances were not granted defendant would suffer undue hardship because of uni- que circum^tatices not reflective of conditions gen- eral to the neighborhood." The hardships in Merriam Park were based on economics, rea- sonableness and practicality. Similar hardships exist to justify the Rhode variance as to setback. The Beckers object to the council.'s interpretation of the setback ordinance as not forbiddirig the approved house locat,ior, wt,,t?n the beckers, and not the Lauers object. to that location. That ordinance (Section 34.201)E;rovides: