Laserfiche WebLink
t ♦ �"1 � <br /> � ' <br /> � d�:,�{� C�t� o� ORONO <br /> • :,::�� _ <br /> .� >'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � _ <br /> �.;�. NO. �'?�� .. <br /> � 5'=s� � <br /> . • •�.. <br /> .,� .. <br /> of this application, the City Council hereby extends the <br /> deadline for reopening of the business to not later than <br /> June 15, 1982. <br /> 15. The applicants hereby agree that they have no vested property <br /> rights to continue commercial use of the premises except <br /> . in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this <br /> resolution, and that the C��.ty may impose additional conditions <br /> as may be needed in the future in order to protect the public <br /> health, safety and welfare. Applicants further agree to <br /> waive any rights to object to such otY�er conditions� if after <br /> a complete and full hearing the City Council determines that <br /> such condition is necessary to' protect the public, health, <br /> safety, and welfare. <br /> 16. Based upon the findings of fact in this case, including <br /> the findings of Resolution No. 1239 and No. 1271, the <br /> • City Council hereby declares that they would have denied <br /> this current application except for the promises made <br /> by the applicants that they would strictly adhere to the <br /> . conditions and limitations set forth herein, and further <br /> the Council declares that this application and conditional <br /> use permitOshall be denied and will be considered to be <br /> invalid unless all the terms and conditions of this resolution <br /> are complied with. This declaration is made for one or <br /> more of the following reasons: • � <br /> a) Any other commercial use or any increased or expanded <br /> commercial use would not be consistent with the prior <br /> existing non-conforming use as documented in the 1968 <br /> conditional use permit for Mayona Sundlin, and therefore <br /> such use would constitute a "use" variance as prohibited <br /> by Minnesota Statutes 462. 357 Subd. 6 (1) . <br /> b) Removal or elimination of the prior existing residential <br /> occupancy would likewise constitute a prohibited "use" <br /> variance. <br /> c) Failure to correct the listed building code and fire <br /> code violations would be a direct health and safety hazard <br /> to the public., <br /> d) Failure to correct the failing septic system would <br /> ` constitute a direct pollution and health hazard to the <br /> public. <br /> Page 13 of 15 � <br />