Laserfiche WebLink
W6124730510 <br /> 06/21/96 <br /> 10:39 0 :10/10 N0:1 <br /> other respect be contrary to the intent of the Z <br /> Code,zd, Zoning <br /> , eubd. 3 (A) (1) . <br /> As the city correctly argues respond <br /> purchased the eats were aware when <br /> Property that they might they <br /> without 9 not be able <br /> obtaining a variance to build a dock <br /> structure. because the property had no <br /> Respondents plight is primary <br /> doing. In addition, at least partially <br /> in denying the variance y their own <br /> concern that it would set a negative � the <br /> "tY cited the <br /> property; precedent <br /> P Y: respondents ' "hardship" for other Pieces of <br /> P wasa con <br /> firth not dition unique to <br /> their piece of property <br /> considered ermore, the <br /> the shared dock city reasonably <br /> the tonin proposal to be contrary to the aim <br /> 5 Code. As measured b s of <br /> Orono Cit Y the standards <br /> Y Code, the cit set forth in the <br /> Y s action in denying respondents ' <br /> shared <br /> dock proposal was reasonable. <br /> Because we determine that the cit <br /> it Y s de <br /> Proposal w denial c._' res <br /> as reasonable pondents � <br /> we do not reach <br /> district court exceeded its the issue of <br /> whether the authority in orderin <br /> adopt a specific shared dock g the <br /> city to <br /> Rproposal . <br /> Reversed. <br /> 4 <br /> 'June 15 1994 <br /> • <br /> _9_ <br />