Laserfiche WebLink
We have a clause in our home sale agreement that states that the sale of our home is <br />contingent u[X)n a buildability variance being granted on the Remicn lot. However, based <br />upon the facts that variances on llie Remicn property were granted previously and that the <br />Commission’s recommendations have been rarely overruled, we Indicated to our buyers <br />the likelihood of a variance Ixung granted. <br />We were then placed on the May 10th City Council agenda. About five days before the <br />meeting, we were removed from the agenda due to a complaint lodged by the neighbors <br />citing a new DNR regulation that could possibly affect the lot’s buildability status. The <br />Commission was forced to postpone our hearing in order to research the complaint. <br />Again, the City Planning and Zoning staff reassured me saying, "The council has a way of <br />looking Ixjyond the surface of these issues." <br />We wei« never led to believe that a variance would not be granted. The City Planning and <br />Zoning staff indicated to us that the variance would be issued if the specifications that <br />were quoted to us were complied with. These circumstances in themselves have created a <br />hardship not only for ourselves, but for our buyers, Jim McManus and Megan Tully, and <br />for the buyers of their home. As a .uit, many homeowners' dreams will be made or <br />broken based upon on the City Council’s decision. <br />The final decision regarding our variance has been delayed tor nearly two months as a <br />result of a sequence of timely placed objections. Not that these objections shouldn’t be <br />addressed in a public forum, but that the public forum should not be used as a vehicle to <br />prolong or delay a commonplace decision. More specifically, a variance to this property <br />has been before the City Council a minimum of four times. Orono employees, as well as <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission staff have done their due diligence and have reached <br />a conclusion which they have expressed to the Council and to the buyers and sellers of <br />this property -- that this is a buildable lot. <br />Please consider the following: <br />1) If the properties to the north and the south of the Remien lot were <br />uninvoivedt the Council would find that the lot has been a past hardship as <br />demonstrated by the three variances Couiuril granted to this property. The question <br />is, how often has Orono NOT granted variances on properties which have historically <br />been granted vananccs? If the answer is rarely, why then would you disallow a variance <br />on this property? As Orono residents, we have placed our faith and trust in the City <br />Council as a b<xly of individuals who arc principled and fair-minded. We believe the City <br />Council should be consistent in it.s jxdicies from year to year. <br />2) The Planning and Zoning staff provides a local perspective on matters. <br />Their hard work in dealing with variances and ordinances and the due diligence they <br />provide in making recommendations to the Planning Commission should be given <br />deference by the City Council. If it is not, then Onjno residents cannot rely on suff s <br />advice and rccommend«iiions .'egi'.rding opinions and ordinances tor the City of On>no.