Laserfiche WebLink
We have a clause in our home sale agreement that states that the sale of our home is <br />contingent upHm a builclability variance being granted on the Remien lot. However, based <br />upon the facts that variances on the Remien 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 varijuice being 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 />t*.'4iicing beyond the surface of these issues." <br />We were 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 result, 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 for 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 />PJatse consider the following: <br />1) If the properties to the north and the south of the Remien lot were <br />uninvolved, the Council would find that the lot has been a past hardship as <br />demoustrated by the three variances Council granted to this property. The question <br />is, how often has Orono NOT granted vai iances on properties which have historically <br />been granted variances? 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 body of individuals who are principled and fair-minded. We believe the City <br />Council should be consistent in its policies 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 Orono residents cannot rely on staffs <br />.advice and recommendations regarding opinions and ordinances for the City of Orono. <br />L