06-28-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Remien pointed out that Bielke claims that he will realize a substantial loss in property value if the variance is approved and asked to see a purchase agreement Indicating the value has decreased because of said variance. Thomas Zappia, applicant’s attorney, asked the Council to review the chronological order of events to find hardship. He stated when the Bielkes purchased their property, a variance had been granted for this vacant lot. He said if the lot were not owned in common, there would be no other reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bielke stated the benefit is greater to Remien if the property is combined and then sold, and added Remien has already attempted to seI I as a who Ie. Peter Bachman, Bielkes’ attorney, stated that Zappia’s letter does not present any new facts, and referred to a letter from the DNR Indicating opposition to the variance. He reiterated that Remien opposed the variance prior to his owning the property, purchased the property knowing it was an unbuildable lot with an expired variance, and purchased the property with the intent to add onto his existing residence. Gary Nasiedlek, potential buyer of the lot, stated he believes the hardship is the fact that they purchased the property based on the Information and recommendation of staff. He referred to a policy change which requires the City to consider all commonly owned parcels individually. He said they iiave purchased the property contingent upon variance approval, and this contingency affects other buyers. Kelley referred to the staff finding that the property was not assessed individually for sewer and water. He felt the applicant has not presented adequate hardship. Gaffron explained Lots 16, 17 and 18 were commonly owned and assessed for one sewer and water unit at the time those utilities were installed on casco Point. The as-built maps indicate the three parcels were considered by the City or its engineer as one existing building site. Lots 16 and 17 contained the residence now owned by the Bielkes. The sewer stub on Lot 18 is the only stub provided for the group of 3 lots and v;as used for the Bielke house as that was probably the most likely location for easy connection due to site topography, etc. He stated the facts have changed as ownership has changed and felt that just because additional sewer and water units were not originally assessed does not mean that It was formally