My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1982_1113_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982
>
1982_1113_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2012 1:23:55 PM
Creation date
2/1/2012 1:17:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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).
View images
View plain text
t!W IF <br />CASE NUMBER: 1412 -82 <br />APPLICANT: Edward McCarty <br />1 December 1982 <br />}' 18.2 6o . variances from Standards . In any case, where upon <br />application of any responsible panties to the City Council, it <br />appears, that by ' reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict <br />enforcement of any provision of the standards would cause <br />9 <br />unnecessary or that strict conformity with the standards would <br />be unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the circum- <br />stanc es , the city Council may permit a variance theref rm upon <br />such conditions as it may prescribe for management of shore lands <br />a <br />consistent with the general purposes of this Chapter and the <br />intent of this and all other applicable state and local regula- <br />tions, laws, provided that <br />The condition caursing the hardship is unique'to the <br />property; <br />( 2 ) The variance is proved necessary in order • to secure for <br />the applicant aright or rights, that are enjoyed by other <br />.T{ <br />owners in the same area dr district; <br />(3) The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the <br />Public int eyes t or damaging to the rights of other persons <br />or to property values in the neighborhood; and <br />No variance shall be granted simply because there are no <br />objections or because those who do not object outnumber <br />these who do; nor for any-other reason than a proved hard- <br />ship, <br />Page 2 <br />4. Fxamination of each of the criteria as applied to the proposed construction <br />suggests the following analysis, <br />( 1) The condition causing the hardship i s uni ue to the <br />proper . <br />The remainder of the shoreline on Langton Lake both north and <br />south of County load C-2 has been'-left in its natural state. <br />This was, of coarse # one of the prime objectives of establishing <br />the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance requirements i n the first place, <br />It is also one of the stated objectives ih .the enabling <br />legislation establishing the right and requirement for each city <br />in the State of Minnesota to en-act such an ordinance. Obviously, <br />the fluctuating elevation of the water is not unique to the <br />property but applies to all- properties contiguous to the lake <br />shore, <br />( 2) The variance is proved necessary in order to secure for <br />the: applicant a right or rights that are ' enjoyed by other <br />owners in the same area or digtrict_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.