Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 <br /> (#1 S) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at <br /> 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued <br /> City Staff has reviewed the property both before and after the acquisition of the County <br /> Road 6 right-of-way, and has determined that the property includes ten plus acres of dry <br /> buildable land. The Hannings have indicated a concern regarding the configuration of the <br /> possible new lot because of the location of the existing residence. <br /> Moorse expressed concern that if a lot area variance by agreement is granted, no public input <br /> will be allowed, and since the City is not a direct party to this condemnation procedure, Moorse <br /> questioned whether the City is legally able to enter into such an agreement. <br /> Tom Radio stated the agreement would attempt to bind future City Councils and current law <br /> prohibits that because it does not allow for due process. Radio commented the City Council <br /> is limited in its ability to give the Hannings much relief. <br /> Mrs. Hanning stated no variance is being requested at this time. <br /> Mayor Jabbour noted the Hannings were offered $12,000 for the right-of-way. Due to the amount <br /> of land remaining after the right-of-way acquisition, which does allow for two lots but with an <br /> undesirable configuration, it was the feeling of Mayor Jabbour that the Hannings <br /> have lost more than just the land in the right-of-way. <br /> Radio commented the Hannings should take the worst case scenario and present it to the <br /> County, which would be that the City Council would not grant a variance. <br /> Mrs. Hanning stated she would like the City to grant a contractual variance to them or go on <br /> record saying that a variance will be denied. <br /> Mayor Jabbour commented the City Council was under the impression the last time this matter was <br /> discussed that one lot would become unbuildable after the right-of-way acquisition, which is not the <br /> case now. <br /> Flint suggested the City Council could grant conceptual approval which would not be binding on <br /> future action by the City Council. Radio cautioned against such action. <br /> Kelley suggested the City take no action. <br /> 17 <br />