2.0. BASR 12-12-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Elk River Investments October 30, 2006 Page 2 • The Variance application requests a written narrative responding to five criteria as follows: 1) That literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship. Answer: Literal enforcement of the 300 foot public frontage requirement would not allow for the re-subdivision configuration proposed. The existing public frontage on Hwy 169 does not provide the width necessary to meet the minimum 300 feet of public frontage for each of the three outlots. The access proposed for Outlot C is an existing parcel of record and it is desired to maintain this access as part of the larger parcel. 2) That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. Answer: Past parcel divisions have resulted in the lack of sufficient public frontage along Highway 169 to provide for the required 300 feet public frontage for each of the three oulots. We are unaware of other parcels with this same • condition. 3) That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the applicant's own action or inaction. Answer: All parcel divisions that currently exist were created prior to our involvement with the property. 4) That the literal application of the provision of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Ordinance. Answer: The literal application of the 300 foot public frontage requirement would not allow for the re-subdivision configuration proposed. The proposed three Outlot subdivision is an improvement of the existing parcel configuration in that two of the existing parcels have zero public frontage. •