Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
• <br />MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD MAY 24, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. <br />Richards asked that if approved the concept plans be a part of that <br />approval as it is crucial that a smaller residence be placed on <br />this parcel. <br />Peter Bachman, attorney for the B i e I kes, referred to the Lorge case <br />where the City was sued over the common ownership issue in 1982. <br />He said this case does not set a precedent as it was settled out <br />of court. He presented that even though variances have been <br />approved in the past, there are major issues preventing approval <br />at this time, including: the common ownership issue, and undue <br />hardship. He referred to a case whereby the Court indicates that <br />without the presence of a demonstrated hardship a variance cannot <br />be approved. He felt the applicant's plight is partially of his own <br />doing. The Courts also have stated that if the property adjacent <br />to the substandard parcel is owned in common, the properties must <br />be combined. The Courts have also indicated that past variance <br />approval does not entitle automatic approval of the present <br />request. He felt the law is very clear in these areas. <br />is Mayor Callahan questioned whether the thrust of his argument is the <br />Council's ability to deny. <br />Bachman replied he is trying to point out that the Council has the <br />authority to deny, but not the authorization to grant the variance <br />if there is no undue hardship. <br />Mayor Callahan said they are trying to determine if there is a <br />hardship. <br />Bachman distinguished that the owner purchased the property knowing <br />that it was substandard and owns the property adjacent to the <br />vacant parcel. <br />Hurr pointed out when the owner purchased the parcel it was <br />declared buildable. <br />Bachman disagreed, noting that the variance had expired. <br />Hurr noted the parcel has been assessed for sewer and water and <br />historically been taxed as a buildable lot. <br />Bachman stated the applicant has used this parcel in common with <br />his homestead property. He said he has asked other city attorneys <br />• and the uniform response has been that it is nonsense to grant <br />variances based on the property being taxed a buildable parcel. He <br />suggested one could request the assessor to tax a parcel at a <br />higher rate and then request a variance based on such. <br />10 <br />