1974 Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cularly so if it is necessary for a bridge to be constructed on this driveway at the narrow point of said Ncrth Half of Tract A so as to go over the soil absorp- tion systems located on Tract A for the purpose of serving the adjacent property owned by William and Nancy Rowe. The house proposed to be constructed by the Hedbergs would be without adequate fire protection for those reasons, and would remain a problem for the City and future owners long after these applicants may have left the property. For these reasons, this Council cannot find as required by Section 12D of the Model subdivision Ordinance that the permit requested by the Hedbergs could be granted "without detriment to the public welfare and with- out impairing the intent and purpose of these regulations". The purpose of the subdivision regulations is clearly to avoid inadequate size lots with inadequate access. Finally, this Council does not find that there is any "undue hardship on enjoyment of a substantial property right" as required by Section 12D of the Subdivision ordinance relating to the granting of a variance, for the record in this case shows quite clearly that the Hedbergs had actual notice of the inade- quacies relating to this lot. Mrs. Hedberg was and is a licensed real estate saleswoman, and as such, should have known of the difficulties relating to this lot. In any case, she was informed at least two weeks before the purchase of the lot that the governing body at that time was not inclined to grant a variance over the objections of neighboring property owners for the reasons described above. It is the opinion of this Council that where, as here, there are substantial risks to the health and safety of the public, a variance such as that requested here cannot be granted and most certainly a variance cannot be granted where the applicant actively participated in creating the hardship, voluntarily assumed a position of alleged economic hardship and then asserted the need for a variance to prefent economic injury. And, in the final analysis, this Council is of the opinion that there will be no permanent economic loss to the Hedbergs as a result of the present inability to use the North Half of Tract A, for at such time as public sewer and water are available to this lot, the circumstances requiring the denial of a vari- ance at this time will have changed substantially, and it is very likely that the Hedbergs would be able to obtain a building permit for the lot. Assuming access and drainage problems could be solved also, the lot would meet the present standards of the City of Lake Elmo. For in such case, the sewage disposal system would no longer be a problem, and it would not be necessary to build a bridge on the narrow roadway to avoid going over the soil absorption system serving the neighboring property. Mrs. Hedberg indicated that she and her husband purchased this property partially to aid in a sale she had secured for the house and lot on the South Half of Tract A; she no doubt earned a substantial real estate commission as a result of this sale; she and her husband bought this lot knowing they might have to wait until public utilities were available to use it, and now should not expect this Council to grant a permit to build on the lot at substantial risk to the health, safety and welfare of the public in order to provide an immediate economic gain to the Hedbergs. In balancing the interest of the Hedbergs on one hand, and the public interest on the other, the Council is of the opinion that it must consider the reasons for the City subdivision and zoning ordinances. That is, to provide for orderly and safe development of those portions of the City not yet served by public utilities and to maintain a limited density in terms of land use sufficient