My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-2012 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2012
>
07-16-2012 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/18/2012 11:04:24 AM
Creation date
9/18/2012 11:04:13 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. , <br /> 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use <br /> for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." <br /> RESPONSE: See Response to No. 3. <br /> 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered conslruction as <br />� defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this � <br /> Chapter." <br /> RESPONSE: No response required. <br /> 6. "The Boazd of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any <br /> use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected <br /> person's land is located." <br /> RESPONSE: It is landowner's position that a variance and permit are appropriate. <br /> 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family <br /> dwelling as a two-family dwelling." . <br /> RESPONSE: No response required. <br /> 8. "The special conditions applying to the siructure or land in question are peculiaz to such <br /> properTy or immediately adjoining property." <br /> RESPONSE: The issue at hand was occasioned because of human error, not because of <br /> something unique to the property. As stated previously, it is the landowner's <br /> position that his intent, at all times, was to insta.11 a landscaping project that fully <br /> met all City requirements. Because the landowner did not possess any personal <br /> knowledge of the application process, or any communications with the City until . <br /> after the problems were identified, the landowner was damaged because he had <br /> allocated that responsibility to someone who apparently misrepresented the status <br /> of the project with the City. <br /> 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in.which <br /> said land is located." <br /> RESPONSE: No response required. <br /> .10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant." <br /> RESPONSE: It is the landowner's intent to remain a law-abiding citizen of the City of Orono - <br /> and maintain the property as his homestead. � <br /> 2 RECEIV�D <br /> JUN 0 6 2012 <br /> . CITY OF ORONO <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.