4.1. BASR 04-28-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission/V 98-3 April 28, 1998 Page 3 2. whether the property is used seasonally or year-round; 3. whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations; and 4. the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. Since the applicant's plans for farming the property can be done without the granting of the variance, the property owner has reasonable use of the property without the variance. The proposed use will be year-round storage of construction equipment and personal items and not seasonal use. It is not clear if the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations. There are other structures, specifically greenhouses, on adjacent property which do not meet the 75 foot setback requirement. In his letter the applicant states that he will address environmental concerns such as runoff from the proposed building by directing it to a holding pond and possible ground water contamination by placing a plastic mat underneath the floor of the building. He states that he will be planting a tree farm on the acres just to the west of the proposed building. The proposed location for the building, according to the applicant, is too wet for farming but is suitable as a building site. This application has been forwarded to the DNR for their comments. Recommendation There are several issues that are a concern regarding this application. There is no hardship, which is one of the principle criteria for granting a variance. The applicant has indicated that in his letter. The proposed location is also within a flood plain. Construction within the flood plain requires a building floor elevation that is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation, which in this case is 878 feet. The applicant would have to raise the building site by 6 feet. The finished fill elevation is 877 feet and this elevation has to be extended 15 feet from the building, bringing it to within 5 feet of the DNR protected stream. When compared to the issues identified in the Shoreline Ordinance as being applicable when considering a variance to the shoreline setback, the applicant did not show that he would not have reasonable use of the land without the variance and the proposed use of the property will be year-round, not seasonal. However, the adjacent property to the east has 5 greenhouses that do not meet the setback requirement. The applicant has indicated in his letter that he would handle runoff from the building by directing it to a \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3.doc