REGIONAL NEWS & INVESTIGATIONS
PO BOX 161702, Duluth MN 55816
Email contact@duluthmonitor.com
Phone (218) 391 - 8791
Links
Follow Us
Free Newsletter
- All rights reserved.
REGIONAL NEWS & INVESTIGATIONS
PO BOX 161702, Duluth MN 55816
Email contact@duluthmonitor.com
Phone (218) 391 - 8791
- All rights reserved.
Variance was unlawful on its face because it was for economic reasons only. New zoning creates a “spot zone.”
Am I allowed to say that Scott Moe sounds like an a**hole who only cares about cash? Since he doesn’t live here, I understand that views might be a concept he doesn’t understand. Except that, if not for views, he wouldn’t want to put up a building in that location. I sure wish someone stopped Essentia from ruining views with the monstrosity they’re building.
If you attended the commission meeting in July, you would have said that out loud. He or someone from the development group was very disrespectful of the dentist. His argument about one’s viewshed is horrible and typical of one trying to intimidate all involved. Maybe John will post the recording of that session. I thought that those that presented arguments against the variance were very respectful and stuck to the facts and stayed away from personal attacks like the development team did.
This variance is a sham.
The LaCosse family has lived in Duluth for decades, paid residential & business taxes, and provided good paying jobs to local residents for decades.
The developer originally claimed that the ledge rock was an unexpected hindrance. The man is either a moron or a liar. Duluth is one giant piece of ledge rock.
Why, oh, why can we not find a City Administrator with the cojones to stand up to these con artists? One less floor will not impact the number of “good-paying union jobs.”
Fulton’s decision should be a clarion to small business owners in Duluth: “You have no value here.”
The developer knew that height would be an issue. The project wasn’t doable in the first place, so they are seeking a change to make it doable and the process is now being bent and twisted to make it happen. As I understand it, the Endi project got around the height issue by purchasing the property on London Road as per the Planning Commission discussion in July. Why are we changing the rules for this developer? Shouldn’t this project be treated the same as the Endi?
Wouldn’t the site be buildable by a smaller project? I think it would with the views it has. Does all development have to be so large that it is this kind of impact? Viewsheds are extremely important. Isn’t that why the dental office built there and others?
It feels like developers come to this town because of our willingness to bend the rules at the expense of the little guy.
I found it interesting that at the original Planning Commission review, there was so much discussion around the validity of using a variance that lacks the hardship test, then they turned around and voted with only one dissenting the variance request. When you have the money you can continue to influence the City and get almost any zoning change to fit your needs. What about the little guys, do they get the same treatment? Maybe, but can they afford the long battles that the bigger boys can? The only reason they are not seeking public help is to keep the requirement for affordable housing out of this project I would think. We did give up some sort of public access as an easement or something for their parking needs.
Note that at the July Planning Commission meeting there was I think three people contesting this, one was a tenant in one of three rentals, the owner of the old Bellows restaurant and the dental office.
You noted: “Launch had requested the variance because they argued that an additional floor was necessary to make the economics of the project.” That is an unlawful reason to grant a variance, for purely economic purposes. And that was the ONLY reason for the variance. Mr. Moe’s remarks about zoning being assumed to be for flat land is ludicrous.