Laserfiche WebLink
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 parceI. <br />Peter Bachman, attorney for the Bielkes, 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 appi icant’s pi ight is partial ly 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 />Mayor Callahan questioned whether the ihrust of his argument is the <br />Council’s ability to deny. <br />Bachman rep I led he Is trying to point out that the Counci I 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 pa-ceI. <br />Hurr pointed out when the owner purchased the parcel It was <br />declared ouildable. <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 bulldable lot. <br />Bachman stated the appileant 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 bulldable 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.