02-24-2020-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

When Ms. Robinson and Ms. Risch were designing and building their dream home, they would have loved to extend either their deck or home an additional 5 feet 6 inches. As you can see from the next three photographs, the deck on their home is minimal as they were subject to the same 50-foot ordinary high water setback as every other home on Lake Josephine. Further, you can see that Mr. Brown’s home has an expansive deck given the small size of his home and having only 44 feet of lakeshore. Mr. Brown purchased a home on a small lake lot and is required to abide by the same restrictions as all other homeowners. Minnesota Statute 394.27, subd. 7 governs the criteria for which the board has to abide by when considering to approve a variance request. A variance can be granted if the homeowner can establish “practical difficulties” in complying with lot restrictions or requirements. In order for Mr. Brown to establish “practical difficulties” he must show that he has a unique property which requires special circumstances (i.e. the need to extend his deck an additional 5 feet 6 inches), that were not created by the landowner, and the variance if granted would not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting Mr. Brown’s variance request would be in direct contradiction of the purpose of the high-water set back as there is nothing unique or special about his property. Also, it would alter the essential character of the locality as all homes on the lake are subject to the 50 foot setback and thus allow for each homeowner to maximize their views of the lake. Mr. Brown purchased a small lake home with only 44 feet of lakeshore. The home came with a beautiful deck which maximized that small home’s view of the lake. There are no existing “practical difficulties” associated with the property. Mr. Brown either willfully or negligently tore down his existing deck, and attempted to build a much larger deck in violation of the 50-foot high water setback. In no way does that qualify as a “practical difficulty” as defined under the statute. If he attempts to argue a financial hardship because he has already removed the existing deck, again that does not constitute a “practical difficulty” as defined b y statute as it was created by him. The statute directly addresses this type of argument stating that “economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties”. An example given of a practical difficulty is a property having inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. An example such as that indicates that it was not the statute’s purpose to grant variances for a larger deck or patio which would infringe on a lake front set back requirement. In conclusion, nothing about this variance request qualifies to have Mr. Brown’s request granted under the requirements listed in MN Statute 394.27,subd. 7. Further, my clients and Jeff and Linda LaNasa, homeowners at 3153 Shoreline lane, have expressed concern about how such a variance will negatively impact the use and enjoyment of their respective properties. Therefore, I respectfully request that Mr. Brown’s variance request be denied in its entirety. Sincerely, KELSEY LAW OFFICE, P.A. John C. Lillie, III JCL/js