Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />feet in width - proposed 12,870 sf or 49% in a: cd and 50 fuel or <br />50% - A cabin had exi ted on the property and was removed in <br />December of 1971. The lot has been assessed for sewer and ha; <br />I--n in single separate ownership for many years. The building <br />Site is consistent with the current pattern of neighborhood <br />development. A11 lakeshore lots on Baldur Park, Road are <br />developed singlo lots as the Pcsnick lot. <br />15. On October 29, 1 9P4, at a public heari;,g on this particular <br />issue, the louncil requested a legal opinion from the City <br />Attorney. The City Attorney advised the City Council that after <br />review of the relevdrt Minnesota state case 13w, as well as case <br />law from other states provided by attorneys for the applicant and <br />nEighbors, there was no prohibition against a denial of the <br />variance under these circumstances. The City Attorney further <br />advised the Council that the questions presented in this case <br />have never been addressed by the Minnescta Supieme Court; thus, <br />the matter is an open question. The City Attorney, However, <br />further advised the Council that case law From the states of <br />Illinois and New York upheld denial of variances under facts <br />similar to this one. Pdrticularly relevant to those court <br />decisions was th fact that there had been offers to purchase the <br />property, which .ouid have protected the landowner from any loss <br />investment in t:,e land. <br />16. At that same meeting, the Orono City Council directed staff <br />to draft a resolution of denial based upon the following findings: <br />a) The property can be plit to it reasonable al lowed use; it can <br />be combined with the adjacent property; and there is an <br />outstanding offer to purchase by the adjacent property <br />owner. <br />b) The intent of th� application is contrary to the setter <br />and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br />c) The development and/or granting of thu variance would set <br />an adverse pcecedent in the City. <br />d) The applicant/purr'haser should ha✓w had knowledge of the <br />7 <br />