02-14-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rwt .* riuiii :THU; 2 10'00 :4:42 OT. 14:S6 ':c. S760044 ’;I ? S Rick J. Sheridan, Esq. January 7, 2000 Page 2 lakefront. The City must look to a demonstration of hardship by your client as defined by Minnesota Statute 462.358-462.359. and Orono Code Section 10.08 as a necessary condition of granting a variance. The burden of demonstrating the hardship is on your client. As I understand it, your client constructed the wall in order to deal with the results of certain storm damage Had this matter been brought to the City’s attention before the wall was built, the City staff would have discussed with the applicant various possibilities for niinimiTing <h© impact of any erosion control measures, and would have recommended to the applicant and the Council a proposal which would accomplish the needed erosion control with the least impact on the natural shoreline. In this after-the-fect situation, the City staff seeks to have in hand evidence which will help it understand the condition of the shoreland before and after the stotm damage, and which will allow it to determine whether the W’all as constructed or another less intrusive scheme would accomplish the preservation of the shorclaud. This evidence is required in order to evaluate the claimed hardship which is legally necessaiy for a variance. Your client should provide the following information: 1. A detailed description and explanation of the specific problems the wall was installed to address. 2. A topographic survey of the site showing the condition of the site prior to any work being done to remedy the problems. As well, please provide any photos showing the condition of the site prior to any work being done. 3. Information indicating any other options considered besides the wall to address the problems documented. 4. An explanation as to whether you believe ftie wail is superior to other less intrusive options. This matt^ is scheduled to be heard on January 1^ before the Plaimiiig Com mission and a public hearing on the variances required and on the Conditional Use Permit wiU be noticed for that date. It would be most helpful if you could provide the factual information requested by January 15‘. Finally, l understand that as a legal maner you contend tha^ your cltem docs not need any permits or variances for the construction of the wall At the City Council Meeting on December 13, 1999,1 understood you to assert that the wall wdiich your client constnieted was not "hardcover” or a “structure" within the meaning of the Orono Code For what it is worth, the longstanding interpretation of hardcover and structure which the City Council applies has consistently included impervious elements like the wall which your client constructed. I xmderstand further that you diugree that the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for such structures if they are permitted by reason of hardship within 75 feet of the shoreline. The City Code and the City Practice have required such Permits for some time. The idea of the Permits is to allow the City and the applicant to have a clear understanding of exactly what is allowed and permitted in the zone, so that it cannot be changed over time without further evaluation or permission.