Laserfiche WebLink
wMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 7 <br />Opheim had no conunent. <br />Kelley stated negative. <br />William Mason, Mayona Sirpinski's lawyer, was present. <br />Mr. Brokl was also present.- There was no one present from <br />the audience. <br />Mr. Mason gave the legal background for the Planning <br />Commission. The fee owner is Mayona Sirpinski. <br />Planning Commission stated that in the absence of the <br />City Attorney's opinion that they shouldn' t take any action <br />until the legal ownership question is decided. <br />Callahan noted that foriuciJ .ucIrion could not be taken until <br />the City's restraining order is satisfied. First of all <br />what hasn't been discussed is the law suit that the City <br />of Orono brought in which Vicki Wisegarver was restrained <br />from carrying on the business, regardless of the ownership <br />question. So until the City Attorney of Orono advises <br />the Planning Commission that they can proceed further, <br />nothing should be done. He noted that a temporary <br />restraining order and a law suit the City of Orono brought <br />against the Wisegarvers prohibits the operation of that <br />business or any habitational use until further order of <br />the court or until various other things have been proven <br />to the satisfaction of Orono. This doesn't have anything <br />to do with whether Wisegarver owns it or whether Mr. Masons <br />client owns it, but if your getting your business lease <br />from Wisegarver their prohibited by law from giving <br />one to Mr. Brokl. <br />Mabusth noted that the City Planner had been advised that <br />the Planning Commission could proceed with the review. <br />She noted that the very fact that the application was <br />before them that the Planner must have contacted the City <br />Attorney. <br />Callahan noted that the Planning Commission should be <br />advised by the City Attorney that the conditions of the <br />restraining order are not being violated in this re'^iew. <br />Mr. Brokl stated that let's assume that Vicki Wisegarver <br />has court clearance inact, if she has that ability then <br />the merits of his application would determine whether <br />or not he complies with the requirements of the City <br />and the original conditional use permit. Applicant <br />that until they proceed with this review he can not <br />get a conditional use permit which would be required <br />to satisfy the conditions of the restraining order. <br />(SPEETER CONT.) <br />VICKI WISEGARVER <br />3800 Wayzata Blvd <br />Conditional Use <br />Permit <br />#666 <br />•. /..i: <br />m