Laserfiche WebLink
MINU`PES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTO�ER 29, 1984 . PAGE 17 <br /> �811 JOHN ERICSON <br /> 1620 SHADYWOOD ROAD <br /> SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE John and Barbara Ericson were present . Bruce <br /> Goldstein, Ericson ' s attorney, was oresant. Zoniny <br /> Administrator ��labusth stated that Ericson seeks tize <br /> divisian of legally combined su'astandard toLs . <br /> �Iabustn stated that L.ot 3 seeks an area variance oL- <br /> 2 , ?.B�J st or l� �c�rcent and a widt�� ��atiance oE 35 <br /> p�rcent. i•1a'�ustn st�3i.;�d tizai� Lot 4 seeks an ar�a <br /> varianc2 of 7_o percz��L and a width variance of 35 <br /> percent. <br /> 7,oning administ,=aL-or Mabust�� stated ti�at Planning <br /> Co�n,nission asKed for �ouncil ' s concentual direction on <br /> an il�terpretaLion of tne code. �Iabust� stated that <br /> Council at that time told Planning Commission to treat <br /> the ap�licationasatypicalsubdivisionapplication to <br /> b� reviewe3 �er sl:andards of the subdivision code. <br /> Mabustn no�e�� ti�ac tize City hasn ' t a�proved nc�w <br /> subdivisions with variances , and therefore Planning <br /> Co�;��nissio_� denie� ti�e aaplical.ion. <br /> Rr_uce ��oldstein noted tne .�i �":�r��nc= b��tv�een Ericson ' s <br /> a�����ir_�tio�7 and tne pr_����io��s Lonie Fisic applir_a�io�� : <br /> l , rricson ' s are noi� new T�o t1Z? City, rricso�� ' s ,�ave <br /> lived here for 4CJ y��rs , so th�re isn ' c a stranger <br /> w�o has nicke:l up tax forf��it land. <br /> 2 . �.�ot d��aling wit� tax for_feit land, but land thaL 'nas <br /> been in the Ericson family sinc� 194C� . <br /> 3 . Noneig'nborhood on�osition. Goldstein noted tnac <br /> a netition has oeen submitted by Ericson ' s <br /> n�ighbors who were in favor of the anplicai�ion. <br /> ��oldstein noted that the Council is obligated to hear <br /> testi;��ny upon a request that is t�nic�ue to the <br /> individual o.roperty. Goldstei�� sta�ed L'nat it is <br /> i�iaopronriace to look at tnings in the nast or things <br /> t�?�a� might hapoen i.n tne f_uture, out iook at the unic�ue <br /> ci�in��s oE tize oropeLty. „oldstein stai��d that th� <br /> neighborhood �atl-ern is t'ne same as tilis proposal . <br /> Goldstein stat�d that t'ne Mn Supreme Court have given <br /> some direction on how �ities should look uoon lakeshore <br /> pronerty. Goldstein stated l-hat in Gervin vs LaSeur <br /> County the following was noted: <br /> 1. The lot size requirement, when being applied to <br /> lakeshore property, must be applied in a manner <br /> design��d to recognize the use of the properi:y. <br /> 2 . When dealingwith lakeshore oroperty, standards oL <br /> the ordinance should be aoplied to avoid absurd <br /> results . <br />