Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />2;00 First Bank Place West <br />': nnesoolis <br />1.1 nnesots 55402 <br />"4 eolone (612) 333.0543 <br />'e ecooler (612) 333.0540 <br />a;'criL LeFevere <br />-eTert P Leger <br />. Der•n,90Brien <br />E Drawt <br />�a t Ker.nedy <br />8 Dean <br />5 er E Purdue <br />181d J Schleffer <br />:-a•esL LeFevely <br />-e•^.e•t P Lefler III <br />.e-ey,t Strand <br />'.'i SjOrklund <br />Kressel <br />� 1. e •a!an <br />L Lavorat0 <br />:18eA Nash <br />_ a" _ ?hce <br />••a "e S Clugq <br />.a —es. T^omson. Jr <br />.a"is►J strommen <br />_ He„ <br />."a Batty <br />LeFeil <br />1A4111-t <br />(YRI-it•11 x <br />iota„ <br />, t•Illtl\\i1111.1� <br />,\4M I.IIM 111 <br />October 17, 1984 <br />Ms. Jeanne Mabust.?' <br />Zoning Administrator <br />Citv of Orono <br />P. O. box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, 55323 <br />OCT 17133 <br />Honorable Mayor and Members of the Orono City Council: <br />As you are well aware, the City Council on several <br />occasions within the last six months has considered the <br />variance request of Lonnie Fisk for property he owns in <br />the Summit Park area of Orono. Considerable opposition <br />has been expressed by a number of the current residents" <br />of that neighborhood and the Council is scheduled to make <br />a decision regarding the request at its October 29, 1984 <br />meeting. Our firm represents the neighbors Who are in <br />opposition to Mr. Fisk's variance request. The intent of <br />this letter is to outline those issues which we believe <br />are significant and helpful to the Council in reaching <br />its decision. <br />A. Burden of Proof <br />Courts are unanimous with regard to the fact that the <br />applicant for a variance has the burden of prooi. It is <br />clear that a zoning regulation should be upheld unless <br />the proponent of the variance is able by convincing <br />evidence to demonstrate that the variance is justified. <br />Failure to provide this proof or presentation of a <br />questionable case should result in upholding the ordi- <br />nance and refusing to grant the variance. The Minnesota <br />Supreme Court stated that a heavy burden is <br />imposed on an applicant for a variance to show that its <br />grant is appropriate. Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295 <br />N.W.2d 609 (1980) at 612. We believe this is a signifi- <br />cant point to underscore because there have been <br />suggestions that, at least at this point in time, the <br />burden is on those in opposition to this variance to <br />