Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD MAY 24, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. <br />Chris Bielke stated they do have a privacy fence long the lot line. <br />She added during a recent open house of their property, there was <br />conversation regarding this property and interest in their property <br />has dwindled. <br />Kelley said he would vote to deny as no undue hardship has been <br />shown. <br />Goetten stated prior Councils have decided this to be a buildable <br />lot, and she feels honor-bound to rely on their decision. <br />Staunton indicated that it is correct that prior action does not <br />bind the Counci I to grant the renewal variance as approval is time <br />limited and lapsed. He said the Council needs to independently <br />confirm the hardship for this request and previous action cannot <br />act as the sole support for this approval. However, he added that <br />the Council is not legally prohibited from granting the variance <br />based on hardship. <br />Mayor Callahan questioned past ownership regarding variance <br />approval. <br />Gaffron stated the variance was originally approved whi ie under the <br />common ownership with the property to the north, then it was sold <br />to a separate owner, and now is owned by an adjacent property owner <br />agaln. <br />Mayor Callahan stated other than economic reasons, he did not see <br />any claim of hardship. <br />Hurr felt they have set a precedent in the past by granting <br />variances where the area meets 11% of the standards. She felt the <br />only question is the ownership. She felt they were bound by <br />previous approvals. <br />Mayor Callahan reiterated that they must find a hardship to <br />approve, and the property could be combined and provide a <br />reasonable use of the property. <br />Hurr disagreed, that they declared this property buildable and now <br />are disagreeing because it is owned in common ownership with the <br />adjacent property.