Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning <br /> Code . <br /> Icl. , subd. 3 (A) (1) . <br /> As the city correctly argues, respondents were aware when t�.�� <br /> purchased the property that they might not be able to build a dock <br /> without obtaining a variance because the property had no primary <br /> structure . Respondents ' plight is at least partially their own <br /> doing . In addition, in denying the variance, the city cited �.hn <br /> concern that it would set a negative precedent for other pieces of <br /> property; respondents ' "hardship" was not a condition unique tc� <br /> their piece of property. Furthermore, the city reasonably <br /> considered the shared dock proposal to be contrary to the aims of <br /> the Zoning Code . As measured by the standards set forth in Lh� <br /> Orono City Code, the city' s action in denying respondents ' shareii <br /> dock proposal was reasonable . <br /> Because we determine that the city' s denial of respondents ° <br /> second proposal was reasonable, we do not reach the issue �'�i <br /> whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering i:.��.F' <br /> city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal . <br /> Reveraed. � <br /> <,... <br /> �June 15 , 19 9 4 <br /> -9- <br />