My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-28-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
05-28-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2024 2:10:25 PM
Creation date
6/14/2024 2:06:44 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.
/
385
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
ii <br />k_ <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />’ 1Mayor and City Counci <br />Mark S. Bernhardson, City Administrat <br />May 13, 1991 <br />Af. <br />SUBJECT: #1497 Gerald Toberman, 1960 Shoreline Drive <br />Attachment:A. #1497 Gerald Toberman, 1960 Shoreline <br />Memo Dated 4/19/91 <br />B. Resolution #2953 Adopted 4/22/91 <br />C. April 22, 1991 Council Minute Excerpts <br />D. Nettles Letter Dated 5/9/91 <br />E. Isanti County vs Mary Ann Peterson Court of <br />Appeals 5/10/91 <br />F. Barrett Letter Dated 5/15/91 <br />G. Gilbert Letter Dated 5/21/91 <br />H. Winslow Letter Dated 4/24/91 <br />ISSUE - <br />1.Determine if Council desires to have a reconsideration of the <br />adoption of Attachment B in light of re^'ent Court of Appeals <br />decision related to similar cases. <br />2.If reconsidered, what action if any they desire to make on the <br />issue? <br />INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 22, 1991 meeting. Attachment B <br />was adopted allowing the continuation of a non-conforming use at <br />ne property based on the facts that the use was determined to <br />have been involuntarily discontinued, and given court decisions <br />in other states that involuntary discontinuance, did not <br />constitute abandonment of the use. <br />Subsequent to that meeting, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued <br />decisions that have some bearing on this case. The second <br />decision is perhaps more anagolous to the current situation. <br />As a result of these decisions, the issue regarding legality of the <br />April 22nd resolution adoption was questioned in Public Comments by <br />Alan Nettles and it was requested during the Mayor and Council <br />Report that this item be placed on the May 28, 1991 agenda to <br />determine if reconsideration may be appropriate. <br />DISCUSSION - In order for the issue to be reconsidered a person <br />on the prevailing side would have to move for reconsideration. <br />As noted in the minutes Counci Imembers Goetten, Jabb«.ur and <br />Butler were on the prevailing side. <br />Should a majority of the Council vote for reconsideration, the <br />matter is then open for further discussion and action. <br />You will be receiving a legal memorandum from Tom Barrett
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.