Laserfiche WebLink
This variance request meets the "practical difficulties" criteria consistent the Minnesota <br /> State Statute 462.357: <br /> ■ We propose to use the Lot in a reasonable manner consistent with its intended and. <br /> approved use, which has been effectively prohibited by a combination of new zoning <br /> ordinances. <br /> ■ Circumstances are unique to this Lot and were not created by the landowner. <br /> ■ Approval will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> ■ The special conditions that apply are peculiar to this Lot and do not generally apply to <br /> other properties. _ <br /> ■ �The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable <br /> difficulty. <br /> ■ The proposed building footprint is in harmony with the intent of the broad range of <br /> shoreland ordinances to preserve water quality, prevent erosion and protect the <br /> sensitive resources. <br /> There are no hardcover or septic concerns with this proposed variance. Sewer lines <br /> were installed in this subdivision in 2004 and can be completed to serve this Lot (with <br /> additional assessments), thereby eliminating any need for placement of a septic system. <br /> Easement rights will also need to be granted to the adjacent 780 property as the line was <br /> terminated on the vacant lot. <br /> We are seeking to either market or build a new primary residence on this Lot. While we <br /> recognize that "economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties", the <br /> denial of this variance and the cumulative effect of the excessive taxation on this Lot will force <br /> us to sell both of our lots. Upon purchasing this property in 2002 and throughout the nearly <br /> ten-year period of ownership, we have understood that this was a "buildable" Lot. We have <br /> been taxed at a sharply increasing rate consistent with this understanding and have received no <br /> notification from any city, county or state officials to suggest otherwise. We believe that a <br /> refusal by the city to allow a reasonable variance that takes into account the unique <br /> circumstances of this Lot and abides by the intent of the regulations would result in a taking of <br /> real property. <br /> John & Phoebe Stavig <br /> March 13, 2012 <br />