My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 10:37:02 AM
Creation date
11/13/2025 10:24:50 AM
Metadata
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.
/
399
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
Jule 1, 1982 <br />MRS. MI11ER WEEM, 220 South fourth St., had a conversation with Mr. Anderson and he <br />told her that he could Trove the kids fran Myrtle Street back to Olive Street and she wanted <br />to make sure that this would not happen - if for sane reason they cannot pay this and this <br />reverts back to Dickie Anderson if he is going to be able to run that as a bed and break- <br />fast inn - also do they hr , any chance of having him back in the neighborhood - <br />MAYOR JlNKER stated that he has no right - this permit would be issued to them(Vegsunds) <br />only - he has never given up his permit on the emergency shelter on Olive Street - <br />There was further discussion about the granting of this permit to the land or to Mr. <br />Anderson and MR. MAGNUSON stated that Mr. Anderson has two permits - one for Myrtle <br />Street and one for Olive Street - he assumed that if the Council did not grant the <br />Vegsunds the permit, he will continue to have his kids on Olive Street. The case in <br />court is only on the number - the number that the City imposed on their permit was more <br />restrictive than the number that the State imposed. The only reason that the City could <br />:.-pose any restrictions at all because there are two hones that are closer than 1200 <br />feet - if there was just one, there is nothing that the City would have to say about it. <br />If the City wins this case in court, the Council has the right to set the number of kids <br />t'.rat he can have at six. He has never seen a Conditional Use Permit revoked - such a <br />.ling mould happen, but the court does not favor that sort of thing and there would have <br />to I-e same pretty severe reasons why the breach in one of the conditions could amount to <br />grounds for revocation. The conditions depend upon the good faith of the parties involved <br />and the restrictions that can be imposed are legitimate ones that concern health, safety <br />and the welfare of the camunity - aside fran that there are a number of conditions <br />mutually agreed to - the property owners agreed to because it represents the good faith <br />demonstrated by the neighbors. <br />IHE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 9:25 to 9:35 P. M. <br />MR. KASTEII.E asked about the granting of the Special Use permit to the property and not <br />to the people and the conditions that would be placed on this permit - <br />MR. MAGTIUSON stated that this City Council would do everything that they could to enforce <br />the condtion that it rx-)t be transferable and the question of whether the transferability <br />of one of these permits has never been tested in the Supreme Court of the State of <br />Minnesota to hiw knowledge and he could not guarantee the outcome - the conditions <br />inWsed (in many Conditional Use Permits there are many of them) and they are usually <br />abided by and people always don't rui to court to try to enforce their rights or they <br />like to avoid vexations - they like to demonstrate Food faith to the neighbors - any of <br />these things can be brouW;ht up to the top and really there is no answer how they will <br />turn out. <br />LEO LOH11M st. -it this property has never came up for sale and it is possible that <br />there are otb • �.e-ople who would like to buy it and he could not see this underhand stuff <br />through a quirt sale - mis was always a nice hone - there has been two apartments there <br />at one time and questioned why they have to get into these other messes - felt it should <br />be delayed until it can be put up for sale, and they would not object to that one bit - <br />want to keep it a residential area and they want to keep it that way. <br />KAIM OERTELL asked if it was possible that thi.; house could go on the market for a month <br />and if it is not sold is it at all feasible that the Vegsunds would get it and in her <br />discussion with CM]NCIl1%U1AN AVISE that if the Co,mcil voted to give the VegsruA the permit <br />for the house and that Dick could not move the Shelter Hone back to Ulive Street and <br />COUNCIIW-W4 AVISE stated that they just talked about that and if the home at 306 West <br />Olive does not sell and Mr. Anderson decides to sell the building on Myrtle Street and <br />close that facility, he can apply to the State for a license to operate at 306 West <br />Olive Street and the City would have nothing to say about it - because there are not two <br />facilities within 1,200 feet of each other and the City would have no control over it - <br />MR. MAGMS3ON stated that he felt that the confusion has been if he aharximus the hanx, on <br />Myrtle, so he has no license the-e, atxl their he gets the property back at Olive Street <br />the State Statutes require that .n such a case where there is rxt another Pule 8 facility <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.