My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
08-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
9/15/2025 12:03:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
8/22/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/15/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
305
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
TO: TJBarrett <br />FROM: BKWhitney <br />RE: Variance for <br />DATE: July 19, 1988 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />I <br />Private Dock on Unbuild ble <br />I. Factual Background <br />A landowner of an unbuildable lot in the City of <br />Orono's LR-lC zoning district has constructed a private dock <br />without a permit. The lot contains no structuLes. <br />Unce, the City's zoning ordinance, a private dock is <br />considered an "Accessory Use." The landowner seeks a variance, <br />permitting the dock as an accessory uF;a wnether principal use or <br />structure. The City questit-is whet-har it car, is.suP such a <br />variance in light of Minnesota Stz as, section § 462.357 which <br />states that a City "may not permit a variance any use that is <br />not permitted under the ordinance .or property in the zone where <br />the affected person'o land is located." Minn. St. -it. § 462.357, <br />subd. 6(2) (1987). <br />II. Legal Issu-- <br />Does Minnesota Statues, section 462.357, subdivision <br />6(2) which prihibits "use" variances permit the City of Orono to <br />grant a variance allowing an accessory use in the absence of a <br />principal use? <br />Iii. Conclusion <br />The Minnesota statute does not L:rohibit granting a <br />variance to permit an accessory use without a principal use <br />because such a variance con:,citutes a "nonuse" variance rather <br />than prohibited "use" variance. An accessory use is essentially <br />a permitted use allowed only under certaic: conditions - i.e., <br />the existence of a principal use. In thi.. way the accessory use <br />operates like site development requirement.:, such as lot sire, <br />density, and parking requirements. F.xcQl)tions to s-.te <br />development requirements do not represen'_ prohibited use <br />variances and instead are permissible noru— a variances. As a <br />nonuse variance, this would not violate t_'. state law. <br />Moreover, such a variance is consistent wifli the ooiicy <br />distinction between use and nonu,:e variar�,- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.