01-23-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3300 Rper Jaf&ay Tower 222 SouUi NinU) Street Minn<^pnH«, Minm»snta SS402 (612) 333-«00 TO: FROM: RE: Mike Gaffron City of Orono Kevin Staunton Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code Section 10.41 B-2 Lakeshore Business District Standards - EnforceabUity Questions DATE: July 17, 1994 (Revised July 22, 1994) I am writing in response to your memo to Tom Barrea regaidmg the above-referenced raaner Your memo expresses concern regarding the enforceability of the proposed a.nendments to section 10.41. You have sought our advice about how to tot accomplish the ^bstS goals in the proposed amendments given the fact that many existmg m^as m the City of Orono conduct toiness acUvities or use their land in ways conaary m the proposed amendments. This memo is designed to respond to your eiriorcement address an issue regarding what is the most appropriate regmatory vehicle for each of the changes proposed. L ENFORCEABILITY The fast issue raised by your memo is the City’s abiUty to enforce ^y of the dirges being contemplated. Specifically, you are concerned about the ability to , thesi amendments against marinas that have been operating for manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. As a general matter, the C ty to enforce the new amendments even on marinas that have been lime in a manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. The red issue ^ how the may “eat preexisting nonconforming uses that weie lawful pnor to adopuon of the amendments. Preexisting non-conforming uses that were lawful prior to the regulations rendering them unlawful may be treated in one of three be allowed to remain or continue. Under this option, the property own chaneed continue the nonconforming use of the property indefimtely so as ^ expanded, or intensified. The theory behind this opuon is t^ bv fire gradually be eliminated through normal wear and tear, obsolescence, or 219/22051413 7/22i94