05-29-2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) Waldron stated without a variance for this particular lakeshore lot, they have no practical u_e of the lot. Waldron stated a dock or a structure is currently not allowed, and places a greater hardship on the property owner than what was found in Roul. Waldron stated this situation "vas not one created by the homeowner, and in the Roul case the Court found the situation was rot created by the property owner since the existing church was constructed before the enactm:: t of the ordinance. Waldron reiterated this has been a lot of record since 1933, which is before the current restrictions. Waldron stated the third requirement the courts look at is whether it will alter the essential character of the locality. The adjoining property in this case is essentially the same as the S::bject property, with a residence being permitted to be constructed on the property. The granting of a lot area/lot width variance would not alter the general locality. Waldron stated there are steps the City could take to insure hardcover and setbacks are com711ed with. Mayor Peterson inquired about the sewer assessment that was never paid. Peterson inquires if the Council should deem this as a buildable lot, what the current sewer assessment would be. • Gaffron stated sewer crossed the property in 1970, with the property being assessed the 50 foot frontage assessment but not for the unit charge or the plant charge since there was not a structure located on the property. A year later the Council declared this lot unbuildable. Gaffron stated at that time the Council did not take any action that he is aware of to refund any part of the 50 foot assessment. �J Gaffron stated at the present time the unit and plant charge would probably amount to approximately $10,000, and should probably be a condition of approval. Mayor Peterson inquired whether Staff has any information concerning the property that NN as granted a lot area/lot width variance back in 1972. Gaffron stated he is not familiar with that particular case. Gaffron stated the Council minutes taken at that time probably will not give as much detail as the Council would like. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, questioned whether the two lots in question have always been M. common ownership. Waldron stated they have not. Barrett inquired when they came into common ownership. Waldron stated they do not know. PAGE 9