My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:47 AM
Creation date
9/8/2025 1:04:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
6/27/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/8/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
622
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
a <br />Mr. Ed Henrich <br />May 10, 1988 <br />Page 3 <br />opinion that the request for variance should be given fair <br />consideration by the City of Orono, and that the City has <br />established a pattern of approving similar variances in the past. <br />Your pr-aVerty is a unique parcel, in that it has existing sewer <br />to" 'and water which has been fully assessed, and because it was a <br />building site of long standing prior to the existence of the <br />present zoning restrictions. Apparently, the City Zoning <br />Administrator has some concern because the parcel in question is <br />small and he does not wish to create "precedents" for other lots <br />with areas of less than one quarter acre. Although this concern <br />is understandable, I feel that there are extremely few, if any, <br />lots of similar size and similar factual background. It seems <br />unlikely that there will be wholesale applications for variances <br />by owners of lots with identical fact situations if your variance <br />is approved. <br />Although you did not specifically request that the situation <br />be reviewed with a eye toward litigation, I feel one additional <br />comment may be in older. I believe it is in the best interest to <br />all involved, the City, the City staff, and yourself to try and <br />reach an agreement with appropriate restrictions on the parcel in <br />question. A blanket denial by the City is, in my opinion, <br />:•-bitrary and capricious. Should you be unable to work out an <br />ai,ceptable solution with the City, I believe you would be <br />justified in pursuing this to litigation,and I wish to assure you <br />that this firm would not hesitate to represent you in that <br />matter. <br />Thank you for your confidence in asking us to review this <br />situation. <br />Sincerely, <br />L <br />C•�orge C. MacDonald <br />GCM:djs <br />enc. <br />is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.