Re: dock installation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

variance. The district court correctly noted that the shared dock proposal ad.dressed some of the concerns expressed by the city council regarding the original dock proposal . But addressing the concerns raised by the first proposal did not necessarily address tre concerns raised by the second proposal . Even though the shared dock proposal may not have had the disadvantages of the earlier dock proposal, it had disadvantages all its own. The city council properly considered these disadvantages in denying the variance . The Orono City Code provides that : � In considering applications for variance, the Council shall consider the advi�o osed vari n ce upon he healtha and the effect of the p P existin and safety, and welfare of the community, g danger o anticipated traffic conditions , a d the effect on values fire, risk to the public safety, of prop erty in the surrounding area. Before granting a variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it i hees°iritaand intent of thi� ChapteYbe in keeping with t p y Orono, Minn. � 10 . 08 , subd. 3A (1984) . The code defines "undue hardship" : 1 , The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls . 2 . The plight �o e�� lno°�eated byethe landownernczs unique to his p p Y * * * g . The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. * * * 11 . The granting of , the proposed variance will not in � any waY impair health, safety, comfort, mora3s, or in any -S- -