10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGU[.AR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984. PAGE Ratty stated that Zoning Administrator Mabusth has 1829 LONIE FISK t•estifieti that Mr. Fisk has been involved with the City before on a zoning application and should have been cognizant of the zoning ordinance. Batty stated that there is also two affidavits on file by the Fisks. Batty stated that Fisk stated that he talked with someone at City hall who said it would be alright to build, but Fisk cannot name that person. Batty asked the Council what a prudent persun would do -in a ease like this. Batty stated if he was going to place $7,000 in an investment that he wuu ld inquire further than to rely on some unnamod ,person at City Hall. Ron Batty stated that ther.? .ire other lets that can be developed in the City and that this case will set a precedent for future lots. Batty stated that the solution to this problem is to have the property sold to an adjacent property owner. Batty stated that Don Meyer (adjacent property owner) has offered to buy the property. Batty stated that the New York courts, when &gal ing with the issue of sel 1 intj property to adjacent property owners, look at the value of the property withoutavariance. Ratty stated that in September the City saw a report which gave three values for the property. Batty slated $1,000 if no variances were granted. Batty stated $12,000 if a variance was granted and if several improvements were made on the property (well, se•.ver connection, etc) . Batty stated $17,000 after developed with a house on the property. Batty stated that New York courts would suggest $1,000 would be appropriate exchange for the property. Batty stated that courts in Illinois deal with how much the individual has invested in th,? property. Batty stated that the property was purchased for $7,000, and Illinois courts would suggest that $7,000 for the property is a fair price. Ron Batty st.+tNd that the neighbors have made an offer which is a standing, valid offer, which the applicant has chosen to reject the offer which betters both of those prices. Batty stated that there is no longer no alternative use for the property. Batty stated that he cannot �)e compelled to sell the land, but if he refuses to sell the land he should not be heard to come back to the City and say the City has to give him the variance. Desyl Peterson of 4385 Chippewa Lane stated that she came to the meeting after reading an article in the paper regarding this application. Peterson asked the Council to consider the following for basis of denial of the application: