Laserfiche WebLink
.� <br /> .� ,Vx. <br /> .� � <br /> ::�,K . Cit� of ORONO <br /> • ����� � <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �`��'��-,�, t NO. 1711 <br /> .�.; <br /> .;• � • • <br /> -�';,1.:�:+"::�:'va� <br /> feet in width - proposed 12,870 sf or 49% in area and 5P1 feet or <br /> 5�1� - A cabin had existed on the property and was removed in <br /> December of 1971. The lot has been assessed for sewer and has , <br /> been in single separate ownership for many years. The building <br /> site is consistent with the current pattern of neighborhood <br /> development. All lakeshore lots on Baldur Park Road are <br /> developed single lots as the Posnick lot. <br /> - � 15. On October 29, 1984, at a public hearing on this particular <br /> � issue, the Council requested a legal opinion from the City <br /> Attorney. The City Attorney advised the City Council that after <br /> • review of the relevant Minnesota state case law, 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 guestions presented in this case <br /> have never been addressed by the Minnesota Supreme 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. Particularly relevant to those court <br /> decisions was the fact that there had. been offers to purchase the <br /> property, which would have protected the landowner from any loss <br /> investment in the 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 put to a reasonable allowecl 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 the application is contrary to the letter <br /> and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br /> c) The development and/or granting of the variance would set <br /> • an adverse precedent in the City. <br /> d) The applicant/purchaser should have had knowledge of the <br /> 7 <br />