Re: Easement rights/dock,etc - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Irf'OF ORONO ® 6124730510 vol c I/ » , - - • variance. The district court correctly noted that the shared dock by the city sal addressed some of the concerns expressed proposal proposal . But addressing the council regarding the original dock pro P concerns raisedy b the first proposal did not necessarily address Even though the shared the concerns raised by the second proposal . dock proposal may not have had the disadvantages of the earlier The city council roposal, it had disadvantages all its own. dock P es in denying the variance - properly considered these disadvanCa9 The Orono City Code provides that: in applications for variance, the Council In consideringori the health, consider the advice and ariane up recommendation of the Boar d shallproposed existing and and the eandctel the ofP the community, danger ofd anticipated and welfare light and air, anticipated traffic conditions, and the effect on values risk to the public safety, onvale s of p, in the surrounding area. Before grantinganea of property shall hear requests for the Council stances variance, provisions of this Chapter in i^ from wher theirh literal strict enforcement would to s the duindividua because eof circumstances unique variances individual beopert and to grant such property under consideration, will be in o when it is demonstrated that such actionsintent of this Chapter . keepingny with the spirit The code defines "undue Orono, Minn- 6 10 . 08 , subd. 3A (1984) • hardship a r, The property in question cannot be put to 1 reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls . 2 . Thelight of the landowner s due ebythtoe circumstanCes unique to his property not created * * special conditions applying to the structure o i The and in question are peculiar to such property l immediately adjoining property. * * granting of . the proposed variance will not in The comfort , morals, or in any any way impair health, safety, -8- -