Laserfiche WebLink
-r A>r <br />r Avift (THU) 2. 10’00 14:42/31. 14:S6/XC. ••;;:4470' ? S <br />t <br />Rick J. Sheridan, Esq. <br />January 7,2000 <br />Page 2 <br />lakefront. The City must look to a demonstration of hardship by your client as defined by Minnesota <br />Statute 462.358-462.359, and Orono Code Section 10.08 as a accessary condition of granting a <br />variance. The burden of demonstrating the hardship is on your client. As I understand it, your client <br />constructed the wall in order to deal whh the results of certain storm damage. Had this matter been <br />brought to the City’s attention before the ■wall was built, the City staff would have discussed with <br />the applicant various possibilities for mmimiring the impact of any erosion control measures, and <br />would have recommended to the t^plicant and the Council a proposal which would accompUsb the <br />needed erosion control with the least impact on the natural shoreline. <br />In this after-the-&ct situation, the City staff seeks to have in hand evidence which will help <br />it understand the condition of the shoreland before and after the storm damage, and ■which will allow <br />it to detemune whether the wall as constructed or another less intrusive scheme would accomplish <br />the preservation of the shoxclaud. This evidence is required in order to evaluate the claimed hardship <br />which is legally necessary for a variance. <br />•w <br />Your client should provide the following information: <br />1. A detailed description and explanation of the specific problems the wall was installed <br />to address. <br />2. A topographic survey of the site showing the condition of tlie site prior to any work <br />being done to remedy the problems. As well, please provide any photos sho^wing the <br />condition of the site prior to any work being done. <br />3. Information indicating any other options considered besides the wall to address the <br />problems documented. <br />4. An e:q>lanation as to whether you believe file ■wall is superior to other less intnistve <br />options. <br />This matter is scboduled to be heard on January 19^ before the Planning Commission and <br />a public hearing on the variances required and on the Conditional Us# Permit udll be noticed for that <br />date. It would be most helpful if you could provide the fkctual information requested by January <br />15 ‘. <br />Finally, i understand that as a legal matter you contend that your client docs not need any <br />permits or variances for the construction of the wall At the City Council Meeting on December 13, <br />1999,1 understood you to assert that the wall which your client oonstnicted was not 'hardcover** or <br />a "structure” within the meaning of the Orono Code. For what it is worth, the longstanding <br />interpretatbn of hardcover and structure which the City Council applies has consistently included <br />impervious elements like the wall which your client constructed. I \inderstand further that you <br />disagree that the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for such structures if they are permitted <br />by reason of hardship witlun 75 feet of the shoreline. The City Code and fiie City Practice have <br />required such Permits for some time. The idea of the Permits is to allow the City and the applicant <br />to have a clear understanding of exactly what is allowed and permitted in fiie zone, so that it cannot <br />be dhmged over time without further evaluation or permissioa <br />11 a nytwt^mp mn i nwn proftoiowal oof rrmATKjHi