Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 <br />#1283 GARY ESCHER <br />3556 LIVINGSTON AVENUE <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #2466* <br />It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember <br />Peterson to adopt Resolution #2466 approving an after - the -fact <br />variance to Municipal Zoning Code. Motion, Ayes -4, Nays -0. <br />#1291 ALFRED IVERSON <br />2835 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #2467 <br />At the request of the applicant, this matter was tabled to the <br />Council meeting of July 25th. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, <br />seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table to the July 25th <br />meeting.. Motion, Ayes -4, Nays -0. <br />#1296 MERRIT J. PETERSON /RICK STODOLA <br />1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION <br />Mr. Peterson and Mr. Stodola were present and were represented by <br />their attorney, Mr. Al Michals. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that these individuals <br />purchased a piece of property from a Mr. Gustafson, known as <br />• Tracts F & G, and constructed a dock on that property. The <br />application involves an after- the -fact variance request to see if <br />they would be allowed to maintain such a dock. Ordinances are <br />such that the dock is an accessory structure and they have no <br />principal structure on the property. Additionally, during the <br />review it was determined that Mr. Tillotsen had also constructed a <br />dock that is not on his property, but on this of property. A <br />related issue to this is whether this of property, in and of <br />itself is a buildable lot so they could actually have a principal <br />structure. Another issue that has been raised, but may need to be <br />reviewed by the City Attorney, is the fact that private docks are <br />defined as an• accessory usage and to the extent that that would <br />require a possible variance, it would be a use variance and not <br />permitted under State law. City Attorney Barrett commented that <br />he felt there were two arguments to be made. It seemed to him <br />that there is a statute which prevents the City from giving a <br />variance for uses and that this request would fall in that <br />category. This was just his preliminary conclusion and he will be <br />further discussing this with City Administrator Bernhardson and <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth. If it is concluded that this would <br />require a Use Variance, he is not certain whether the Ordinance <br />would allow the City to grant such a variance. <br />The Applicants and their Attorney, Mr. Michals, requested the <br />opportunity to present their case. Mr. Michaels began by <br />commending the staff for their outstanding report. He stated that <br />. in his original discussion with Zoning Administrator Mabusth he <br />3 <br />