02/03/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DEMOTA HEIGHTS In 1976, Mr. Smith purchased a vacant lot from Jones; he knew Jones had unsuccessfully tried to subdivide the proper- ty two years earlier. Nevertheless, Smith applied for subdivi- sion approval for 2 lots, and also, on the advice of his planning consultant, for 3 zoning variances: (1) from the city's wetlands ordinance setback requirement (85 feet instead' of 100 feet); (2) from the frontyard setback requirement (23.5 feet instead of 30 feot); .(3) from a frontage requirement (on an existing public 30 foot ROW instead of a 60 foot ROW), and to construct a private driveway on the 30 foot ROW. The plan- ning commission held a hearing, and the neighborhood rose up ~n arms over the proposal - primarily because Jones had earlier filled in part of the lakeshore to meet the minimum lot area requirement. The planning commission recommended approval, providing the DNR did not object; the DNR later said it had no objection to the illegal fill. At the city council meeting, the neighborhood and Mr. Smith engaged in fierce battle. Smith argued that his var- iances were warranted because: (i) It would be a hardship to landscape and maintain a 72,000 sq. ft. lot and uneconomic to build one house on such a large lot; (2) it would be a hardship to pay taxes on such a large lot; (3) it would be a hardship to maintain an image of the largest lot in the neighborhood and he might have problems reselling the lot; and (4) The DNR was not opposed to the construction. Neighbors argued as follows: (1) Diminished public access to the lake if the ROW became a private driveway. (2) Snow removal would be difficult as the roadway would only be 15 feet wide. (3) The city had never previously issued 3 or more var- iances to make a lot buildable. (4) The city had never previously granted a variance from the 60 foot ROW frontage requirement, nor per- mitted a private driveway on public ROW. (5) Setback variances would defeat the primary purposes of the setback requirements. What would you do? How would you write your findings to make sure they would be sustained in court?