Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, September 11,207 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 15. #17-3963 JHG PROPERTIES,LLC,4035 DAHL ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT, <br /> VARIANCES,CONSERVATION DESIGN WAIVER—Continued <br /> James H. Gilbert,JHG Properties, stated he has resided in Orono for over 35 years and has tried to be a <br /> proactive individual in improving his neighborhood. Gilbert stated the property at issue has been an <br /> eyesore for 17 years and has caused continual issues with law enforcement and maintenance issues for the <br /> City. Gilbert indicated when this property became available for sale,he decided to purchase it to <br /> hopefully make improvements to the site. <br /> Gilbert noted the City allowed a trailer home three blocks down,which is what he could do on this lot <br /> without City approval,but that he would prefer to subdivide it and build a couple of nice homes. Gilbert <br /> indicated he probably paid more for the property than it is worth and a couple of high-quality builders <br /> looked at the property and recommended the existing house be torn down. Gilbert stated in order to be <br /> even with the money he paid for the property,the sale value would have to be around$1.2 million. <br /> Gilbert noted the money he paid for this lot exceeds the value of the other nonlakeshore properties in the <br /> area. <br /> Gilbert noted there are three statutory requirements for granting a variance,with economic considerations <br /> being a proper element for determining practical difficulties under the statute and under the law. Staff has <br /> basically said it makes no difference and that he paid too much for the property. Gilbert stated that <br /> interpretation is wrong and that economics can be considered but it cannot be the sole determining factor. <br /> Gilbert stated economics is a very important consideration in this case. Aesthetics can also be taken into <br /> consideration. <br /> Gilbert noted the City Council considered an application on Wildhurst where variances to setbacks were <br /> required. Gilbert stated the majority of the decision appeared to be economic related and that he has the <br /> same economic concerns with this property. Gilbert stated in his view the City cannot treat requests for <br /> density variances different than setback variances. The statute does not make a distinction on that. In <br /> looking at Orono's history,Orono seems to be very proud at never granting a variance to density. Gilbert <br /> stated to his recollection 1985 is the last time density variances have been granted. <br /> Gilbert stated in this situation,where a City's primary focus is on the detrimental effects of granting a <br /> variance to allow new construction where it never happened before and has a strict policy to deny a <br /> variance request is improper. Gilbert noted one of the Council members in the Court of Appeals case <br /> stated dealing with this in a similar situation for years to come is one of their major concerns. Gilbert <br /> stated the Orono Planning Commission also expressed the same concern. <br /> Gilbert indicated he has represented other parties in other cities and was stunned at the complexity of the <br /> Orono Code. Gilbert noted this is not a major subdivision and that he is just asking for a simple lot split. <br /> The Court of Appeals has said that they conclude that the Board's decision was arbitrary and <br /> unreasonable because the decision expressed the Board's will and not its judgment. Gilbert stated he <br /> senses the will of Orono is not to allow density variances and that he thinks his application for a density <br /> variance has to be given the same consideration as a setback variance,which is not what is happening <br /> here. <br /> Gilbert stated in the Wildhurst case,there were two findings that should be found in this case and the City <br /> Council would be capricious in not applying those findings to this request. The resolution in the <br /> Wildhurst application states in Paragraphs 4 and 10 that the granting was necessary for the preservation <br /> Page 7 of 17 <br />