My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
04-24-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:23:26 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:19:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
171
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, April 10, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />15. #17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, 1298 WILDHURST TRAIL AND LOT 3, BLOCK <br />WILDHURST, VARIANCES (Continued) <br />Walsh stated the inlet created the weird arc and that the options came up after the Planning Commission <br />meeting. Walsh pointed out the applicants would have to build past the purple line to be conforming as <br />measured by Staff. <br />Birkeland stated their surveyor indicated he has measured it this way for a long time. <br />Curtis stated the surveyor read the definition a different way from Staff and that very few lake lots are <br />created in the City. <br />Seals asked what option Staff would prefer. <br />Curtis stated Staff would prefer not creating nonconforming lots. <br />Seals asked if the Planning Commission representative had anything to add to the discussion. <br />Denise Leskinen, Planning Commission representative, stated they had a lengthy discussion on this <br />application regarding the practical difficulty and that their preference was not to create nonconforming <br />lots. Leskinen stated the I 0 -foot side setback variance was less of an issue than creating two <br />nonconforming lots. Leskinen stated the reason the Planning Commission recommended denial was due <br />to the lack of a practical difficulty since it seemed that the only practical difficulty was economic in <br />nature and that it was not within the scope of the Planning Commission's authority to recommend <br />approval. <br />Walsh noted the applicant had indicated at the Planning Commission meeting he did not write the original <br />practical difficulty. <br />Birkeland stated he wrote it and that he was mistaken at the Planning Commission meeting. Birkeland <br />commented some of the questions were ambiguous to him and that he is simply attempting to make the <br />lots more useable. Birkeland stated the money aspect is important and that they have owned it for 51 <br />years and have paid taxes on it. Birkeland stated he is not sure why they drew it like that. <br />Walsh stated in the end the physical characteristics of the land were not addressed in the practical <br />difficulty statement. <br />Birkeland commented he is not a developer and that they seemed to be more statements rather than <br />questions. <br />Printup stated if there can be two conforming lots, he would be less concerned with the variance. <br />Page 12 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.