05-09-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GistASON. Martin fit V arpness , P.A. Anr«W TS Ai*' couMeuss *t i a* ICMM t. VAIMISS* r ATUCX M. COMM OAMT RYOtaCIN •mo KOKIT V OHLASON Nfardi9, 1994 mt PAlUaAVN AVINUI SOUTH sum w liffisiNEAKlLIS, MINMJOTA SS4)S TEUETHCM MI til 17*1 SAX MX Ul :»■ ISCAI ASKTAim GUMUA KU JIOT THYMH Mr. Kevin P. Staunton Attorney at Law 222 South Ninth Stress Suite 3300 MlniieafX)lis, MN 55402 RE; Wkitnat ConUtumti Use Bmt AppUagionUfy ofOnmo Dear Mr. Staunton: RcfanKC is made to our telephone disacsions during Septemto, 1993 awi your lettCT to me dated September 28,1993. The declaratory judgment proceeding in Whitman V. Lawrence, Hennepin Gxrty District Court File No: CT 93-12901, which was the subject of our communications, hts now been decided. Enclosed for >our review is a copy of the Court's Order and Memoraidum dated Mardi 7, 1994. As you can see, the Court's Order, ard in particular paragraph 3, specifically addresses the question tliat was fi:amed by your Sqjtember 28 letter. Basis for the Order is more fully set out in the Court's attached Memorandum, in whidi it is recognized that the lack of the fee owner's COTsent to the conditional use application and the inability of the City to proceed with the Whitmans’ application in the absence of the cor^sent, is what gives rise to the actiotL The Court further specifically took note of your letter in which a resolution of the qi..stic« by declaratory judgment was contenpiated Thus, the Order granting summary judgment to the Whitmans in the declaratory judgment action h^ clearly resolved issus and removed the "lack of consent" impediment to their pending application. Accordingly, I am providing a copy of this Order to the City of Orono Zoning Administrator ^vitll the request that the Whitmans' tpplicalion msy now go foward throu^ the usual review and action processes. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in helping to define and resr*' ; this issue.