Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> � ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1977 Page 30 <br /> � The property has been assessed for sewer and VARIANCE <br /> � water and the following special assessr.ients remain 3545 Ivy Place <br /> �unpaid: $225. 00 sewer plant charge, $375. 00 SAC (Continued) <br /> charge sewer and water, and $250. 00 park dedication <br /> fee. All special assessments will be paid if <br /> � Mr. Petersen is granted authority to build on <br /> , the property. <br /> w Approximately 80 years subsequent to the time the <br /> property was platted, the Village of Orono adopted <br /> � a zoning ordinance setting a minimum lot area of <br /> 2 acre and a 100 foot lot width. P4r. Petersen' s <br /> � lot does not meet these requirements. The property <br /> . will be residential, the purpose for which it was <br /> zoned. Also, Mr. Petersen' s proposed dwelling will <br /> � comply with the setback requirements of the zoning <br /> code. <br /> � <br /> LAW: <br /> � <br /> By Minnesota Statute, an applicant is entitled to <br /> � a variance where the strict enforcement of the <br /> . zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship <br /> because of circumstances unique to the individual <br /> ` property under consideration. In the present case, <br /> the very fact that the property was properly <br /> � platted 80 years prior to the adoption of the zoning <br /> �ordinance renders it unique and results in hardship <br /> as a r►atter of law. <br /> � The lot is substandard only because it does not <br /> � meet the area and width requirements of the zoning <br /> code. The property is the largest lot in the <br /> � subdivision and yet is the only lot which has not <br /> been built on. It is interesting to note that <br /> � there are other lots in the subdivision which are <br /> sr.ialler and yet were built on prior to the effective <br /> � date of the zoning ordinance. The former owner <br /> � could have built on the property in 1966, but <br /> not in 1967 after the zoning code was effective. <br /> � Such an anamolous situation was not envisioned by <br /> the zoning code. <br /> � <br /> If the variance is not granted, the lot cannot be <br /> � built on and the property will be rendered sterile. <br /> • No parctical use can ever be made of the property. <br /> Consequently, there is a taking of private property <br /> ` without due process of law. <br /> � In 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, S14. 51, it <br /> is stated: <br /> � <br /> � "The clearest case of hardship due to the literal <br /> application of zoning regulations is that of the <br /> M substandard lot which cannot be used for any <br /> purpose without relief from the restrictions. (Continued) <br /> � <br /> � <br />