Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 10, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />*13. #17-3908 ROMAN ZHUK OF CUBE, INC., 3320 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES FOR <br />LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH — RESOLUTION NO. 6749. <br />Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 6749, a Resolution Granting Variances <br />to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 for Property Located at 3320 Navarre Lane. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />*14. #17-3909 KEN AND SHERALYN SADDLER, 2755 ETHEL AVENUE, VARIANCES FOR <br />LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH — RESOLUTION NO. 6750. <br />Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6750, a Resolution Granting <br />Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 for Property Located at 2755 Ethel <br />Avenue, File No. 3909. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />15. #17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, 1298 WILDHURST TRAIL AND LOT 3, BLOCK <br />WILDHURST, VARIANCES <br />Curtis stated the applicant owns three lots of Wildhurst Trail. Two of the lots are the subject of this <br />application. Currently Lot 2, located at 1298 Wildhurst Trail, is a lakeshore lot and the unaddressed Lot 3 <br />is a non-lakeshore lot. An application for a subdivision exemption was submitted to permit an <br />administrative lot line rearrangement between the two properties in order to reconfigure Lot 3 as a <br />lakeshore lot. <br />Based on the information provided, there does not appear to be sufficient width at the ordinary high water <br />level and at the 75 -foot setback as required by the Code to support the new lake lot. Further, the existing <br />home on Lot 2 reduces options and will likely require a side setback variance. New nonconformities are <br />not to be created. Therefore, variances are necessary to process the lot line adjustment. <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their March meeting and reviewed the application. <br />The Planning Commission felt the request was reasonable but they struggled with the lack of practical <br />difficulty as needed to support the variance. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial. <br />The Commission further recommended the applicant provide additional practical difficulties analysis <br />supporting their request. <br />Comments from the public were received regarding this application and have been included as an exhibit <br />to the Planning Commission report. Additional comments were made at the meeting and the minutes of <br />the Planning Commission meeting provide more detail on those comments. <br />Page 9 of 26 <br />