Laserfiche WebLink
, ... ► <br /> LEO�R ERSL�D <br /> ERSTA.D & RIEMER, P.A. °�o`�E�R,�.= <br /> RICHARD RIE�tER D41NA L.BRE,�'NAN <br /> JEFFREY H.\ELSO`i 1000 Northland Plaza p���•��� <br /> L�1WRE:`�CE J.SKOGLt1\�D TN05415 H.SCH.aEFER <br /> GEORGE G.HOTfI\GER 3800 West 30th Street S.�4YDR.�L.JO\'ES <br /> JEFF 4t.Z�[.�15h'Y �iinneapolis,Nlinnesota 5�431 Lau�u�.vxamEs <br /> jON K.IVERSOY <br /> �uca�LJ.sos�c�u. Telephone (612)896-3700 •A150LIC&YSF1)INR'ISCO�SIV <br /> SiEVEY E JtAITAl`iI Fax (612) 896-3717 <br /> June 21 , 1994 �������� <br /> JUN 2 4 1994 <br /> Ms . Jeanne A. Mabusth c{Tl( O�ORONO <br /> Building & Zoning Administrator <br /> CITY OF ORONO <br /> Post Office Box 66 <br /> Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 <br /> RE: Richard Stodola and Merritt Peterson v. City of Orono <br /> Your Claim No: 56527-19355 <br /> Our File No: 10008 .0008 <br /> Dear Ms . Mabusth: <br /> As you know from our telephone conversation this morning, we just <br /> received the decision from the Court of Appeals. The Court of <br /> Appeals reversed the trial court and concluded that the City's <br /> denial of the plaintiff 's proposals were reasonable. Enclosed is , <br /> a copy of the decision. <br /> The Court of Appeals noted that prior to purchasing the property, <br /> the plaintiff ' s were aware of the ordinances prohibiting their <br /> intended use of the dock. The court also pointed out that the fact <br /> that a court reviewing the action of a municipal body may have <br /> arrived at a different conclusion, had it been a member of the <br /> body, does not invalidate the judgment of City officials if they <br /> acted in good f aith and within the broad discretion accorded them <br /> by statutes and the relevant ordinances . The court then looked <br /> specifically at the City ordinances which supported the City <br /> Council 's decision. It concluded that the Councils decision was <br /> justified by those ordinances . The court also concluded that the <br /> plaintiffs did not qualify for a variance. Even though the shared <br /> dock proposal addressed some of the concerns addressed by the City' <br /> Council, it had disadvantages of its own which the City Council <br /> properly considered. <br /> The plaintiff has the right to petition to the Minnesota Supreme <br /> Court for a Writ of Certiorari within 30 days . This is not the <br /> type of case that I believe the Supreme Court would be interested. <br /> in reviewinge Furthermore, the plaintiff has no right to appeala <br />