03/17/94 Public Hearing @ 7:36 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5) Granting of the variance w~'II not alter the essential charaCter of thc locality as established by the management plan. At the hearing, thc Bo.ard of Adjustment.should receive testimony and make findings on h.ow the applicant l~as met each o.f these prerequisites, in addition to any other reqmrements for granting a variance trom the enablingstatutes and your ordinance. The applicant has a heavy burden of proof for all of the prerequisites, according to the courts. The record should show answers to the following questions relating to the prerequisites: Can the property be put to any reasonable usc if used under thc 30% impervious surface condition allowed by the ordinance? What are alternatives for the use of. this property that would conform to the ordinance? What alternatives would have less impact than an increase from 0% impervious surface coverage to a 90% impervious surface coverage? Why is this variance the only solution? What considerations besides economic considerations are prompting use of this property with 90% impervious surface, instead of 30% coverage? 2) How does the granting of 90% impervious surface comply with the purpose and intent of the Wild and Scenic River Act andthe Critical Area Designation Executive Order? 3) What is unique about the actual land of the property that prompts a hardship forg0% impervious surface coverage? Court cases have shown that problems peculiar to the present ,.owners or their desires do not satisfy the prerequisite because they don t relate to the property itself. If the circumstances are common to a number of properties in the area, then it is not unique to the subject property. When was the property purchased? Court cases have shown that if the landowner bought the property after the effective date of the requirement from which the variance is sought, then the variance is self- created and the variance cannot be granted. 5) What is the locality like - uses, setbacks, legally allowed usages? In addition to these listed conditions, the hearing and findings should also provide information on what alternatives will result in no increase in surface water discharge and retention of predevelopment hydrological conditions. The Board of Adjustment should Uso note that DNR has no record of receivingnotification of the variance to the impervious surface area in Lot 2 granted by the City in 1986. Because we were not notified, this action was never certified by the DN'R as required by the rules and ordinance, and d~s not set a precedent. It is unknown to us when Lot 1 was developed beyond the 30% limitation. The City should notify the DNR of its final decision .on the proposed action within ten days of the finalization of the minutes and findings and order. The notification should include copies of all plans, including drainage plans; minutes of the hearing testimony and discussion; andf'mdings of fact, conclusions, and order. Under MN Rules, part 6105.0230, subp. 1, any variance which directly affects the use of the land in the River District must be certified by DNR to ensure that the