My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
10-20-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:37:54 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:37:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
0 <br />0 <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 <br />( #6 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum - Continued) <br />Birnbaum said the connection of the lots was not a consideration at the time of the <br />original variance application so would not be relevant to whether the lot was buildable. <br />He indicated there is .52 acres at this time. The difference from the eroded portion of <br />property is only 1 /100th of an acre that is no longer included in the calculations, from .39 <br />acres to .38 acres. <br />McMillan questioned whether the elapsed variance would set some type of precedence. <br />Birnbaum again noted no changes have occurred. He said he would like to build a <br />smaller home on the property. Bressler said a hardcover variance would be required <br />depending on the size of the driveway. Mrs. Birnbaum noted that the access road is <br />adjacent to the lot. Birnbaum said he intended to either sell all of the property or sell <br />separately and keep one separate lot. <br />Commission questioned the ability to approve a variance for a lot without any plans. Van <br />Zomeren said it was to restore a prior variance. McMillan noted if the property is sold in <br />the future, the new owner would have to make application and go through the same <br />process. <br />Commission discussed the ability to renew the variance without plans and whether it <br />could be denied when the lot has been deemed buildable in the past and assessed for <br />sewer. <br />The Birnbaum's said they had been unaware of the need to renew the variance each year. <br />Lindquist said the intent of the application if for the City to deem the lot as buildable. <br />Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2283 noting a buildable lot <br />exists. It was noted that no other variances would be granted in the future other than lot <br />area and lot width. <br />Schroeder informed the applicants that it would be in the best interest of the City for the <br />lots to be combined. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Berg. <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.