Laserfiche WebLink
i � 1 <br /> PC Exhibit B <br /> Mike Gaffron <br /> From: Sandy[sandy@RickCarlsonLaw.com] <br /> Sent: � Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:19 PM <br /> To: Mike Gaffron <br /> Cc: Melanie Curtis <br /> Subject: Zoning Application#12-3557 - <br /> June 19, 2012 <br /> Mr. Mike Gaffron SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY <br /> Assistant City Administrator mgaffron@ci.orono.mn.us <br /> P.O. Box 66 � <br /> Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 <br /> RE: Zoning Application#12-3557 <br /> Dear Mike and Melanie: <br /> ' ..:"F.. � � <br /> First, I wish that I would have fiad a chance to meet you personally last night, but obviously, with the length of <br /> the meeting, L was unable to do so. In any event, both of you have been very courteous to me in this very <br /> unusual and difficult situation. I wanted to take a moment, based on last night's events, to iry and establish a <br /> time frame or game plan as to where we go from here. � <br /> I am quite confident that the City of Orono has likely never seen a situation with facts like the present. As I <br /> attempted to communicate to your Planning Commission, this entire scenario is predicated on whether or not <br /> they (or you) accept Mr. Schuxner's representa.tion of the facts. Because I have known him for nearly 40 years, <br /> it is impossible for me not to want everyone to know what type of individual he is. At some point,this is truly a <br /> situation of whether you believe him or not. Having said that, and having been involved so much after the fact, <br /> my intent has always been to facilitate a resolution and keep these matters within your offices, and not a court <br /> of law. <br /> Mr. Schumer was blindsided, and had no idea how to address the siivation. While I am sure your offices would <br /> have preferred he moved more quickly, he did take steps and consult the second landscaper, and was working <br /> on a plan to conform with your present ordinances when he became aware of the prospects of possible new <br /> ordinances that would substantially alter the circumstances. When I read your report, it suggested that Mr. <br /> Schumer was looking to "withdraw" his efforts to come into conformity, and stop working on a plan. While <br /> that is technically correct, the only reason that he hesitated again was because of circumstances that had <br /> changed in the course of the events. <br /> As one of the panel members suggested, in theory, if Mr. Schumer would have gone ahead and removed the <br /> non-conforming landscape, only to find out that he could put it back under a new ordinance, that would seem an <br />�'' incredible waste. That brings us to the present situation. I want to make it crystal cl�ear that, as Mr. Schumer's <br /> representative, I want every member of that panel to ultimately be aware that this man is working with you. <br /> From my perspective, with the proposed new ordinance, we are a11 in a state of uncertainTy. Yet, something <br /> clearly needs to be done. What I do want you to understand, aga.in, is Mr. Schumer's thought process. He did <br /> not ask me to research other file records and to show multiple other variances that had been granted over the <br /> past few years. That is not his mindset. If it had been, and if he had a project in mind that he knew was not <br /> going to meet the present requirements,he would have met with your offices beforehand, and not after the fact. <br /> i <br />