1974 Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

parcel after the effective date of the ordinance. This Council finds that each of the other cases cited by the Hedbergs is unlike this case, and distinguishable. Moreover, this Council finds that there are other cases of application for a vari- ance similar to the Hedbergs' application where this Council has denied the vari- ance and the permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of the Hedbergs for a variance from the provisions of subdivision and zoning ordinances of the City of Lake Elmo and a building permit for the purpose of constructing a residential dwelling on the North Half of said Tract A as proposed in their application herein, be and the same is hereby denied, for the following reasons: Under the provisions of Section 12 of the Model Subdivision Code adopted by Ordinance No. 37 of the former Town of East Oakdale and effective October 3, 1966 as aforesaid, this Council may grant a variance in any particular case where "by reason of exceptional topography and other physical conditions, strict com- pliance" with the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would "cause an excep- tional and undue hardship on the enjoyment of a substantial property right, pro- vided such relief may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose" of the subdivision ordinance. Section 5.04 of the Model Zoning Ordinance adopted by Ordinance No. 34 of the former Town of East Oakdale and effective May 2, 1968 provides that this Coun- cil may grant a variance "if it finds that a hardship has been created by the shape or condition of the parcel in question; granting the variance is necessary to reasonable use of the land and granting the variance will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of adjacent land." In this case, this Council can- not help but conclude on the above facts, that to grant a variance to the Hedbergs and permit them to build on the above lot, would adversely affect the potential use of adjacent land by creating a substantial risk of pollution of the adjacent pub- lic waters by reason of the fact that an adequate sewer system cannot be construc- ted on the North Half of said Tract A. It appears to this Council that while the sewer system designed by the Hedbergs' engineers might be sufficient in another location, it is not adequate here because, as the testimony of the engineers in- dicates, there is serious doubt whether the system as designed can be located in this particular lot. In any case, percolation tests would be necessary to deter- mine whether the minimum standards of soil absorption could be met by this particu- lar system on this particular lot. In any case, the system designed for the Hed- bergs is admittedly a minimal system for a two -bedroom house. This Council is of the opinion that it would be negligent and irresponsible in terms of public interest to approve a minimal system for a two -bedroom house, when in all likelihood the house would ultimately be modified or converted to a greater number of bedrooms and, thus, overload the system. In any case, the evidence offered by the Hedbergs does not satisfy the fears of this Council that the system they have proposed can in fact be located so as to function properly on their lot. In addition to these fears with respect to the proposed sewage disposal system, it is the opinion of this Council that the present access to the property already used by three residential properties is inadequate and unsafe in that it is not public property and therefore not available for the extention of municipal sewer or water services if and when such services are available in the general area and, moreover, because of the narrow roadway constructed on the 20-foot easement and the difficulty of maintaining and plowing a narrow private easement such as this, it is difficult to provide adequate fire protection for there is difficulty in maneuvering the necessary fire equipment into these lots. This would be parti-