Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 <br />( #11) PAUL AND MARCIA MERL@ <br />2142 SHADYWOOD ROAD — <br />VARIANCE — RESOLUTION #3024 <br />J <br />Marcia Merlo was present for this application. <br />Moorse advised that this is an application to hardcover <br />requirements to construct a two story addition. <br />Mabusth explained that the applicants have revised their <br />plan as requested by the Planning Commission. The applicants <br />have submitted two proposals, one of which they feel is not <br />viable because of a severe drop and a tree in the way. She noted <br />that the hardcover from the spillway has been removed from the <br />calculation as requested by Planning Commission. <br />Goetten felt the second option was a more workable solution. <br />Butler asked if there would be room for a truck to turn <br />around with the second proposal. <br />Merlo noted that they would have to use the joint driveway <br />more and it would be very tight. <br />Jabbour stated that the applicants have worked very hard to <br />comply with the ordinances. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Peterson, to adopt <br />Resolution #3024,, application #1678 for Paul and Marcia Merlo of <br />2142 Shadywood Road, approving hardcover variances to construct a <br />two story addition. `Ayes 4, nays 0. <br />( #12) MORATORIUM DISCUSSION <br />Gaffron- asked how the Council felt regarding lot line <br />rearrangements, which are considered by code to be a subdivision, <br />in relation to the recent moratorium. And if this type of <br />subdivision -is subject to the moratorium, can a concurrent <br />variance application be filed with the - subdivision application. <br />He noted that the moratorium stated that anything that did not <br />have, preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption date of the <br />moratorium is subject to that moratorium. Gaffron asked if the <br />lot sizes created by the lot line rearrangement do not meet code <br />and require variances, are they subject to the moratorium. <br />Jabbour felt that the applications could be handled <br />concurrently. <br />Butler stated that she always felt that a lot line <br />rearrangement is not actually a subdivision because is does not <br />create a new lot and both lots are currently occupied by their <br />prescribed use. If a lot line rearrangement is proposed with one <br />of those lots being vacant, then it would be considered as a <br />subdivision as you are creating a buildable lot. <br />8 <br />