Laserfiche WebLink
• 05/17/00 WED 12:09 FAX <br />CITY OF ORONO 9 6122W616 <br />@019 <br />04/13/00 11 ;:>0 D*‘^1/21 N0:240 <br />^ . . <br />f <br />F' <br />y <br />V <br />U.1 <br />I <br />i <br />L <br />• % <br />other peapect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning <br />6oda. . <br />lA.\ gubd. 3tAHl). <br />Ae the city correctly arguee, respondente were aware when they <br />purchaecd the property that they might not be able to build a dock <br />without obtaining a variance because the property had no primary <br />structure. Respondents' plight is at least partially their own <br />doing. In addition, in denying the variance, the city cited the <br />conearn that it would eet a negative precedent for other pieces of <br />property; respondents' •hardship'' was not a condition unique to <br />their piece of property. Furthermore, the city reasonably <br />considered the chared dock proposal to be contrary to the alms of <br />•the Zoning' Code. As measured by the standards set forth in the <br />Orono City Cede, the city's action in denying respondents' shared <br />deck proposal w.is reasonable. <br />Bacauae We determine that the city's denial of roepondente' <br />second proposal was reaeonable, we do not reach the issue of <br />vhatb«r the dietrlct court exceeded ito authority in ordering the <br />city to' adopt a opectflc shared dock proposal. <br />• •aaveeeed. <br />June XSs 1994 <br />• <br />-9-