My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
12-12-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 1:07:04 PM
Creation date
12/11/2023 1:02:56 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
412
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
•> <br />■='v <br />: <br />POPHAM HATK MFMORANDUM <br />3300 Piper Jaffiay Tower <br />222 South Nimb Street <br />Minneapolis. Miaoesoia 35402 <br />(612) 333-4800 <br />m <br />% <br /># <br />TO: Mike Gaffron <br />City of Orono <br />Kevin Staunton <br />Ujgj Proposed Aniendnients to Zoning Code Section 10.41 <br />B-2 Lakeshore Business District Standards - Enforceability (Questions <br />DATE: July 17, 1994 (Revised July 22. 1994) <br />I am writing in response to your memo to Tom Barrett regarding the above-referenced <br />matter. Your memo expresses concern regarding the enforceability of the proposed <br />amendments to section 10.41. You have sought our advice about how to best accomplish the <br />substanUve goals in the proposed amendments given the fact tlmt many existmg mannas in <br />the City of Orono conduct business activities or use their land in ways contrary to the <br />proposed amendments. This memo is designed to respond to your enforcement inquines and <br />address an issue regarding what is the most appropriate regulatory vehicle for each of the <br />changes proposed. <br />L ENFORCEABILITY <br />The first issue raised by your memo is the City’s ability to enforce any o. the changes <br />being contemplated. SpecificaUy. you are concerned about the ability to enforce some of <br />these amendments against marinas that have been operating for years (or even decades) m a <br />manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. As a general matter, the City is free <br />to enforce the new amendments even on marinas that have been Gegally) operating for a long <br />time in a manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. The real issue is how the <br />Ciiy may treat preexisting nonconforming uses that were lawful prior to adoption of ihe <br />amendments. <br />Preexisting non-conforming uses that were lawful prior to the adoption of land use <br />regulations rendering them unlawful may be treated in one of three ways. First, the use may <br />be allowed to remain or continue. Under this option, the property owner is allowed to <br />continue the nonconforming use of the property indefinitely so long as the use is not changed, <br />expanded, or intensified. The theory behind this option is that nonconforming wiu <br />gradually be eliminated through normal wear and tear, obsolescence, or destruction by tire. <br />li9/220Sim7/22M
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.