My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-10-2019 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2019
>
06-10-2019 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/2/2019 10:45:48 AM
Creation date
6/25/2019 11:30:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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,June 10,2019 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Johnson asked if there can be a condition placed on the property restricting future garage space. <br /> Mattick stated at the Staff meeting the initial question was, can the City place conditions on a variance <br /> where the City can prohibit something that would otherwise be allowed. After conducting some <br /> research, Mattick stated he believes the City can. If the applicant gets a side yard variance for 5 feet <br /> where 10 feet is normally required and the applicant would like a 35-foot house,the Council can say you <br /> only get 30-foot house,which is taking away something that otherwise would be allowed. <br /> Mattick stated in this instance the Council has to decide whether they should impose conditions. <br /> Oakden stated the applicant is requesting 1,432 square feet. <br /> Mattick noted that would take away 942 square feet. <br /> Walsh noted the condition would not preclude him from coming back at some point in the future. <br /> Mattick stated the Code contemplates 2,400 total square feet, so to get a variance for one building,the <br /> question is whether there is a strong nexus to strip him of that extra square footage that would be allowed. <br /> Walsh stated there may not be a true practical difficulty and the question is whether the code is something <br /> the City should revisit. <br /> Johnson stated if massing is a concern, attaching the structure is the most unencumbering way to add <br /> square footage. Johnson asked whether a practical difficulty could be the fact that the code is <br /> unreasonable. <br /> Walsh asked how long it would take to revisit this specific code issue. <br /> Barnhart noted there is some time left in the 60-day review period but that it might be a challenge to get it <br /> before the Planning Commission in time. <br /> Crosby stated there could be a practical difficulty with the placement of the structure since access to the <br /> structure would be more difficult at the rear of the property. <br /> Mattick stated that would be the discussion but that he does not like saying the City does not like its code <br /> so let's give variances. If the City Council does not like the code,they should change it. <br /> Walsh asked if the applicant would be willing to delay this a little in order for the Council to review the <br /> code. <br /> Mike Johnsrud,Applicant,stated he has the ability to build up to 999 square feet in another building that <br /> is not contiguous to this one and that it is not a state statute that it has to be ten feet from the property line. <br /> This development was put in back in the mid-1980s, and the lots are all somewhere around three acres, <br /> but someone granted the developer the additional land behind the structures to get to the five-acre <br /> minimum that was required at the time the development was done. The taxes and ownership,however, <br /> are based on 2.68 acres. <br /> Page 16 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.