Agenda Packets - 2006/08/14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 proposed building. He stated there is not a single negative impact except for the integrity of the 1 current zoning codes. 2 3 Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is very reasonable and identified seven hardship criteria, 4 including the property owner’s right to use the property as they see fit. He stated such a hardship 5 has been held up in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He stated the practical difficulties of 6 constructing a building that meets the CUP creates an undue hardship for the property owner and 7 the collection itself warrants such a building. He mentioned the lack of opposition from 8 neighbors and cited several instances in the past where hardship has been granted to several 9 applicants based on similar criteria. 10 11 Mr. Calusniak went through the exceptional circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, 12 which state that “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not 13 apply generally to other properties in the same zone.” 14 15 Mr. Calusniak stated that a lot 2.7 times the size of the minimum required is an exceptional 16 circumstance and the codes which are applicable to normal properties should be compromised for 17 such a large lot. He stated other compromises have been made for small lot sizes and he is 18 seeking uniform application of the codes. 19 20 Mr. Calusniak stated he has identified several other cases in which pre-existing conditions, such 21 as trees, have been considered. He brought up several cases the Planning Commission has 22 approved and that Mr. Slabiak is seeking a uniform application of the codes. He again stated he 23 fails to see direct negative impacts. 24 25 Mr. Calusniak stated he and Mr. Slabiak are not asking for revisions or changes to the 26 ordinances, but stated it is within the rights of the Council to grant variances. 27 28 Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is not unreasonable, it is not inconsistent with the 29 neighborhood, and it does not create hardship for the neighbors. He stated Mr. Slabiak has 30 amassed a significant cultural asset, he is not collecting for profit, and the collection is an asset to 31 the City. He added that Mr. Slabiak is an excellent neighbor and resident. 32 33 Mr. Calusniak explained that the code is not compromised. He stated there are other issues 34 facing the area and it would be appropriate when considering this request to consider those other 35 issues. He also stated, regarding the hardship criteria, that he has a difficult time understanding a 36 clear precedent and applications approved by the Planning Commission in previous cases have 37 been approved under similar conditions. 38 39 Mr. Calusniak stated he does not believe Mr. Slabiak created the hardship. He reminded the 40 Council that Mr. Slabiak did not know he had to go through a variance process when he 41 purchased the property. 42 43 Councilmember Thomas asked the applicant how much square footage the collection currently 44 occupies. Mr. Slabiak presented the Council with a layout of his current collection. He stated 45