Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />• <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JUNE 22,1998 <br />(#15) Robert and Julie Hanning - Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at <br />4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued <br />City Staff has reviewed the property both before and after the acquisition of the County <br />Road 6 right -of -way, and has determined that the property includes ten plus acres of dry <br />buildable land. The Hannings have indicated a concern regarding the configuration of the <br />possible new lot because of the location of the existing residence. <br />Moorse expressed concern that if a lot area variance by agreement is granted, no public input <br />will be allowed, and since the City is not a direct parry to this condemnation procedure, Moorse <br />questioned whether the City is legally able to enter into such an agreement. <br />Tom Radio stated the agreement would attempt to bind future City Councils and current law <br />prohibits that because it does not allow for due process. Radio commented the City Council <br />is limited in its ability to give the Hannings much relief. <br />Mrs. Hanning stated no variance is being requested at this time. <br />Mayor Jabbour noted the Hannings were offered $12,000 for the right -of -way. Due to the amount <br />of land remaining after the right -of -way acquisition, which does allow for two lots but with an <br />undesirable configuration, it was the feeling of Mayor Jabbour that the Hannings <br />have lost more than just the land in the right -of -way. <br />Radio commented the Hannings should take the worst case scenario and present it to the <br />County, which would be that the City Council would not grant a variance. <br />Mrs. Hanning stated she would like the City to grant a contractual variance to them or go on <br />record saying that a variance will be denied. <br />Mayor Jabbour commented the City Council was under the impression the last time this matter was <br />discussed that one lot would become unbuildable after the right -of -way acquisition, which is not the <br />case now. <br />Flint suggested the City Council could grant conceptual approval which would not be binding on <br />future action by the City Council. Radio cautioned against such action. <br />Kelley suggested the City take no action. <br />17 <br />