Laserfiche WebLink
. �' 6124730510 <br /> ' 06/21/96 10:39 � :70 <br /> /1Q N0:1 <br /> other respect be conCrary to t <br /> _ Code, he intent the <br /> of Zoning <br /> : �� subd . 3 (A) {1} , <br /> As the city correctly arquee, responde <br /> purchased the nt� were a�r�re when they <br /> properLy that the � <br /> withau� Y mlght not be able <br /> obtaining a varjance becauae Lhe t� build <br /> g dock <br /> etz-u�ture . Respondents � ProperrY t,a� no <br /> Plight ig primary <br /> doih at least <br /> g• In addition, in d�n PBrtial!y their <br /> ying the v °� <br /> concern that it woul ariance� the � <br /> d set a n� ``tY �ited the <br /> proper� gative precedent for <br /> Y; reapondents � '�hardahi �� �ther pjeceg of <br /> P was <br /> the.ir piece of property, not a condition uni�e to <br /> �rthermore, the <br /> con�idered the shared dock proposal ;o , <br /> ���Y reasonably <br /> the Zoning �ode , be COntrar <br /> A� measured b Y t� the aims of <br /> Orono �jt Y the sta:�dards set forth <br /> y Code, the ci�y � s action i �n the <br /> dock pzO�,osal w n den}.-zng resp�ndente � <br /> a$ rea�onab� e shared <br /> Because we determine that the � <br /> second proposal was city B d`=nia1 ' <br /> reasor.able �-- respondents � <br /> whether �he ' we do not reach <br /> district court exceeded itB th� i$��e °f <br /> cjty to adopt a e authority in orderin <br /> pecific shareci do�k g the <br /> Rev�rsed. P='oposal , <br /> . <br /> June 15 1994 <br /> _9_ <br /> �M <br />