Laserfiche WebLink
70k UEV1 <br />D <br />JASON C. BECKER JU APR 1 <br />1990 <br />9200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5426 <br />CITY, OE ORONO <br />March 31, 198n <br />S46 <br />Mr. Alan R. Olson <br />Village Planner <br />City of Orono <br />P.O. Box 66, Crustal Bay, ' % 55323 <br />Dear Mr. Olson: <br />I have just returned from a business trip and found vout letter <br />waiting for me. <br />I thought that you covered the subject well and will try to abide <br />by the ground rules except: <br />1. I believe any substantial "modification" of <br />resolution 851 is, in effect, a new resolution <br />and should be so regarded by the Orono Council. <br />Changes to eliminate major provisions such as <br />the "easement issue" or relocating the house are <br />"substantial" modifications. '_ believe that I am <br />antitl-d to "due procesb" on a substantial change. <br />2. According to the Orono Code (32.371) variances <br />expire one year after date of approval. Conse- <br />quently, since more than one year hag passed, a <br />new •ariance applicatiAm IF. in order, starttny with <br />the Orono Planning Commission. <br />1 Don't ap,ree with your paragraph #3 which P-:cuses <br />the City from informing interested partier of <br />relevant Information. The ftlet that the City "wIl'. <br />not stand the expet,ae of multiple copvinft" is not <br />a legitimate reasur, for failure to notifv which <br />could, in turn, result in an absence of "due <br />process". <br />4. A major reason for Rrenting a , -.: ianct, to Mr. Rhode <br />was the Council's finding that the easements were <br />"illegal". Now that the courts have ruled the ease- <br />ments "valid", I would assume the Cotui-il would not <br />grant a variance since, according to B. "alkorsAm, <br />