Laserfiche WebLink
constructed as accessory uses and that principal structures would <br />first be required; further, Mabusth advised that no principal <br />structure could be placed on subject property; nevertheless, the <br />variance procedure was recommended and followed. <br />VII. <br />That during the administrative review process, Zoning <br />Administrator Mabusth, through memorandum, recognized that other <br />non-conforming docks existed within the City; that Administrator <br />Mabusth recognized that the pre-existing dock on subject property <br />was a legal, non-conforming use; that Mabusth recommended against <br />approval of Plaintiffs' application citing the requirement that <br />without a principal structure, the dock should not be allowed. <br />VIII. <br />That Defendant City has allowed and continues to allow the <br />construction and use of boat docks on parcels of land that do not <br />contain principal structures; that these parcels of land that <br />contain boat docks do not qualify for principal structures but <br />have nevertheless been permitted by Defendant. <br />IX. <br />That on August 22, 1988, the Orono City Council passed a <br />Resolution of Denial to Plaintiffs' application citing, among <br />other things, that the adjacent neighbor (Tillotson) had already <br />established a boat dock on the property; that Defendant also <br />supplied Plaintiff with a memorandum from the City stating that <br />it would be lawful for the City to consider Plaintiffs' applica­ <br />tion as a "non-use variance" and that this type of variance would <br />not violate the purpose and intent of the City Code or State <br />-3-