Laserfiche WebLink
� City of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 1711 <br /> • - � • <br /> �'+,i� +rr r � ;� i�4`a �' �'jr <br /> - �,� z �n ..� 4 J�' -'r i'';�)�c��� <br /> l��y � �{t�:'., � ,a ,g p.� <br /> ��'q�1�. L'?� 4 � y�u� �• <br /> �;F:„ t�d/�;`.,' �°e�;��a�� � <br /> J 8:.. <br /> feet in width - proposed 12,870 sf or 49% in area and 50 feet or <br /> 50s - A cabin had existed on the property and was removed in <br /> December of 1971. The lot has been assessed for sewer and has <br /> been in single separate ownership for many years. The building <br /> site is consistent with the current pattern of neighborhood <br /> development. All lakeshore lots on Baldur Park Road are <br /> developed singl.e lots as the Posnick lot. <br /> 15. On October 29, 1984 , at a public hearing on this particular <br /> issue, the Council. requested a legal opinion from the City <br /> Attorney. The City Attorney advised the City Council that after <br /> review of the relevant Minnesota state case law, as well as case <br /> law from other states provided_ by attorneys for the applicant and <br /> neighbors , there was no prohibition against a denial of the <br /> variance under these circumstances. The City Attorney further <br /> advised the Council that the questions presented in this case <br /> have never been addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court; thus, <br /> the matter is an open question. The City Attorney, however, <br /> further advised the Council that case law from the states of <br /> Illinois and New York upheld denial of variances under facts <br /> similar to this one. Particularly relevant to those court <br /> decisions was the fact that there had been offers to purchase the <br /> property, which would have protected the landowner from any loss <br /> investment in the land. <br /> 16. At that same meeting, the Orono City Counci 1 directed staff <br /> to draft a resolution of denial based upon the following findings: <br /> a) The property can be put to a reasonable allowed use; it can <br /> be combined with the adjacent property; and there is an <br /> outstanding offer to purchase by the adjacent property <br /> owner. <br /> b) The intent of the application is contrary to the letter <br /> and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br /> c) The development and/or granting of the variance would set <br /> an adverse precedent in the City. <br /> d) The applicant/purchaser should have had knowledge of the <br /> 7 <br />