My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-2014 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
11-24-2014 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2019 4:01:45 PM
Creation date
4/19/2019 4:01:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 24, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 17 of 21 <br /> <br />(8. #14-3697 GARY AND JOAN MARQUARDT, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD – VARIANCES <br />continued) <br /> <br />Marquardt asked what the timeline would be. <br /> <br />Mack stated if the City Council does table the application, Staff would likely extend the 60-day rule to <br />allow for an additional 60 days. Mack stated the applicants could either come back at the first meeting in <br />December or January. <br /> <br />Bremer noted there is only one City Council meeting in December. <br /> <br />Marquardt asked if it is possible to take the deck off of the application tonight and then start over with the <br />deck as a separate issue. Marquardt indicated the deck will be the last thing that will be built and that <br />they would like to start construction on the addition this winter. <br /> <br />Mattick stated they can do that. Mattick asked how long the applicants would be prohibited from <br />reapplying if that portion of the application is denied. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated six months. <br /> <br />Bremer noted that would just be for the deck. <br /> <br />Mattick stated if the applicants are requesting approval of the side yard setback, he would recommend <br />withdrawal of the application as it relates to the deck rather than having it denied. Mattick stated that <br />would allow the applicants to reapply for the deck immediately. Mattick stated if, in fact, the variances <br />regarding the deck are denied, the ordinance requires the applicants to wait six months before making the <br />same application. <br /> <br />Bremer stated if the applicants proceed with the addition, they would be building something without the <br />deck. <br /> <br />Loftus stated there will be some redundancy the applicants will need to go through if they separate the <br />requests. <br /> <br />Marquardt asked what the most expeditious way to proceed would be. <br /> <br />Loftus stated it does not sound like it will be approved tonight. <br /> <br />Mattick stated if the applicants are able to redesign their plans in the next week, they would be able to be <br />back before the City Council on December 8. <br /> <br />Joan Marquardt stated she thought they had to wait six months. <br /> <br />Mattick stated that is only if the variance for the deck is denied. Mattick stated the most cost efficient <br />method is to table the application, which means there would not be an approval to grant the side yard <br />setback tonight. Mattick stated if they would like to redesign the deck, he would recommend the <br />application be tabled.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.