My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#5468-variances-2006-includes CC minutes
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Shoreline Drive
>
1860 Shoreline Drive - 10-117-23-42-0004
>
Resolutions
>
#5468-variances-2006-includes CC minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:27:21 PM
Creation date
11/14/2018 1:06:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1860
Street Name
Shoreline
Street Type
Drive
Address
1860 Shoreline Drive
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
1011723420004
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, May 8, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #OS-3136 TROYBRDI7'ZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Coiitinued) <br /> White withdrew his motion. <br /> Coward pointed out that a precedent for lot width had been set within the neighborhood and this <br /> house does not fit it as it is far more massive. <br /> Murphy stated that it saddened him to see how the proposed mass of the home nearly almost <br /> shamed his neighbors in size. <br /> Larson stated that it appeared to him that the only hardshi�the applicant faced had been created by <br /> the size of the home that he proposed to put on the lot. He failed to see any hardship whatsoever. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that, in a zone that requires 200' widths, any proposed construction would <br /> require a variance. In fact, Gaffron stated that all of the homes within Fox Hill would require a <br /> width variance to be rebuilt. <br /> Moorse indicated that the applicant had met the side setback requirements. <br /> Broitzman maintained that the City has a code which addresses the size of the footprint, on a less <br /> than 2 acre lot, where a certain percent is allowed for the footprint or is limited by the structural <br /> coverage which he stated they are in compliance with. <br /> Sansevere asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the massing. <br /> Broitzman stated that he was not. <br /> Murphy moved,White seconded,to accept the resolution, moving the driveway to the <br /> original location off of County Road 15 and directing staff to compile findings of fact to <br /> support the location. <br /> Broitzman stated that last fall he was told by the Council to put the driveway out back and now, <br /> after 8 months, he would prefer it that way. <br /> White pointed out that until he could be supplied with a �nal plan for either location, he could not <br /> be in a position to decide which he would support. He believed that now that he had seen a <br /> proposal and all that it entailed,he preferred the driveway off the front. <br /> Brokl stated that the Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution and findings of fact to <br /> support the driveway off the front of the property. <br /> Morris Nelson commented that the water runoff from the front of the yards typically ends up in his <br /> yard where there is a culvert and offers a better solution. <br /> Broitzman asked the City Attorney if the Council could ask him to rework his efforts after having <br /> asked him to put the driveway in the back previously. <br /> PAGE 8 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.