Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD MAY 24, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1811 — CONT. <br />Goetten felt that reply rather simplistic. She inquired about the <br />assessment of sewer units. <br />Gaffron reported that the properties in this area were assessed <br />footage and there was no unit or area charge. This parcel was <br />assessed the front footage charge and would have to pay incremental <br />charges based on recent sewer upgrades. He added the sewer stub on <br />this parcel is used by the Bielkes and needs an easement. <br />Bachman clarified the point he was trying to make is the City has <br />the right to control land use and it should not be based on <br />historical taxing practices. He felt the only reason why these <br />properties were not combined is the owner feels he will make more <br />money if sold separately, and a variance cannot be approved based <br />on economic reasons. He said an applicant for a variance must meet <br />all applicable City and State standards. He said the property does <br />not have any unique characteristics to distinguish it from other <br />substandard parcels. He felt denial of the variance does not <br />prohibit the use of the property as it can be combined with the <br />adjacent parcel. <br />Bachman reviewed the findings included in the draft resolution and <br />felt they were lacking. <br />Steve Silus, potential buyer of Remien's developed parcel, stated <br />he has agreed to this purchase knowing the adjacent parcel will be <br />developed. <br />Hurr asked him if he felt that to be a negative. <br />Silus replied he did not any more than the property developed on <br />the south side. <br />Chris Bielke noted the three variances approved in the past have <br />been to owners not owning the parcel in common with adjacent <br />parcels. <br />Jabbour questioned whether the owner could sell the two parcels <br />independently and the new owner come back with the hardship that <br />there is no available land and this is a reasonable use. <br />Staunton opined that could be done. <br />is Bachman retorted that the law provides that anytime property is <br />owned in common ownership it must be combined. <br />11 <br />