Laserfiche WebLink
1^. <br />mpmM ■■■.MKMEMOR\NPVM JJftO Pll»r Jt/IVty TiVtttt <br />:;2 S*ntth N*«^ Snr»« <br />ML-uieipcylU, Mtnn^»ot* SUt>l <br />(612) 333-»M») <br />fiv FArsiMii IE <br />TO;Mike C^ffron <br />City of Orono <br />FROM: <br />RE; <br />Kevin Siaumo!!S' <br />DATE:July 17, 1994 <br />I am writing in response lo yourmemo to Tom Bairett icgwding the ibovc-rcfcrcnccd <br />•^U, conim Ux cnfor.»bimy of U« propc«d <br />,monJraor.u to soctloo 10,41. You h.ve souiht oor ,J- i« about how to best acuonipltah the <br />^bsmH«Vais 10 tb,e proposed rtteodments jlvett the fact that many e.aistm, tosuDsunuve ^r t ____ contrary to thethe City of Otono conduct bus-.ncss acUviiies or use their land in ways contrary to tnc <br />psoposed unendments. This memo is designed <br />address an issue regarding what Is the most appropriate regulatory vehicle for each of the <br />changes proposed. <br />I.enforceability <br />The first issue raised by your memo is the City's ability to enforce aiiy of Ute cltMgeS <br />being c”»mXteTsJI«incally. you are concerned about the abUity to ^ <br />these ameodments against marinas ihai have been operaung or yews <br />a* . -«<«• ^y.. r- <br />_____ .n.eniiments even On maiinas iltat Iiave been (legally) opetaung foi a longto enforce the new amendmcnii even ------------------ - . <br />Ume in a manner ihat would be contrao' to Ute new amendments. The <br />City may ueat pteeaisUng nonconfcrming uses tltat were Uwful prior to adopuon of the <br />amendments <br />Preexisting tion-conforming uses that were Uwful prior to the f <br />regulations rendering them unlawful may be treated in one of Uitcc ways. * <br />be allowed to remain or continue. Under this option, the property own changed, <br />condnue ihe nonconforming use of die properly indofuiitely so j <br />expanded, or intensined. The theory behind this opuon is ihai nonconforniuig ^ i <br />gradually be climinaied through normal wear and lear, obsolescence, or c <br />JI9.'5:63UIJ7/17^4