Laserfiche WebLink
04-14 on FRI 12:30 FAX <br />CilY Oh ORONO 'S 6122494616 <br />■ ®oio' <br />04/13/00 n;50Ly:2i/2i no:240 <br />ocher reepeet Be contrary to the intent o£ the Zonlna <br />6od«. <br />I(i.. ■tlbd. 3 (A) (1). <br />Ae the city correctly arguee, reepondents were aware when they <br />purchaeed the property that they might not be able to build a dock <br />without obtaining a variance becauee the property had no primary <br />eeructure. Reepondente- plight ie at least partially their own <br />doing, in addition, in denying the variance, the city cited the <br />concern that it would set a negative precedent for other pieces of <br />property,- reapondente' -hardship- was not a condition unicjue to <br />their piece of property. Purthermore, the city reasonably <br />coneidered the shared dock propoeal to be contrary to the aims of <br />the toning Code. As measured by the standards set forth in the <br />orono City Code, the city-s action in denying respondents' shared <br />dock propos6^ was reasonable. <br />Becauee we determine that the city's denial of respondents' <br />second proposal was reasonable, we do not reach the issue of <br />Whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the <br />city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal. <br />• •RAvabsad. <br />iTune 15, 1994 <br />*. • <br />-9-