Laserfiche WebLink
\ 'Fabyanske , Svoboda , Westra, Davis & Hart <br />A ntoKssoKAL A ssociation <br />jT-' <br />t. <br />ML T. <br />Oi»ALO L fVCteSA <br />%WkRK W. Wf »THA <br />Actrarr l cavis <br />4;«MlAHJ.aA«^CV <br />MCUAar. MQ2» <br />oiM«s j. rvoccN <br />trOTT LLCyO ANDf^SOM <br />9AUL L VATiUl <br />T. S?A*J <br />^A aN ■. TUOMSOS <br />GAtTf C a I?C3CN <br />CAAillS A. GASTM <br />SUTg 11 CO <br />920 SICONO AVfSOUTH <br />MI.N^APOLIS. MINNESOTA 55i02 <br />7tL£^HONIf12-3ai011S <br />mSCCPill^ g1M2i-3iS7 <br />' \ <br />cwxsrtraiiAiua <br />Kt\I f. HAA? <br />.•uomi 5. KJkCW <br />A a. MAAT <br />971 4. <br />CiCUAAO C .1N»N <br />ncMAj j. ru*cci <br />CHAaUl 0- CA««TI* « <br />A^AY StJC R VCirtai04 <br />NCCH^IJ. wcsa <br />-CaElVNL ecu. <br />5f**Nccx <br />UJLS K cc «ary <br />•Ar?£ • <br />September 1, 1994 <br />Ms. Jeanne Mabush <br />Building Sc Zoning Administration <br />Ciiv of Orono <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, aMN 55323*0066 <br />RE: 3599 Livingston Avenue <br />Dear Ms. Mabush: <br />We are counsel to aMs. Gayle Siegler and have been asked to assist her in the satisfaction <br />of the conditions imposed by Lhe City in Resolution #3370. and to review the propriety of those <br />conditions. <br />Among the conditions that appear unusual to me are the requirements that the applicant <br />pay SAC and WAC charges. I understand that the City is requiring that these charges be paid <br />despite the fact that such charges have previously been assessed and paid on this property, that <br />the permit concerns no change in use and that the applicant proposes no new plumbing fixtures <br />or installations. <br />I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence sent by Ms. Siegler to Mr. Moore on May <br />16, 1994 concerning the City’s determination to assess such charges in these circumstances. <br />Except for demands for payment, the only response to this inquiry that we have received is your <br />letter of August 30, 1994 in which you explain that the charges were made in accordance with <br />"an established policy of the City." <br />Please ad\ise as to the following: <br />1. What is that established policy? In other words, what is the City’s policy in <br />determining whether to assess SAC and WAC charges against improved <br />properties that are the subject of a request for a conditional use permit bccauM <br />of the existence of a pre-existing non-conforming use, when SAC and WAC <br />charges have previously been assessed against the subject property and no new <br />plumbing fixtures, connections, or other alterations are planned? <br />F;MX)OBJ.S-\:i621