My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-27-2006 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
02-27-2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2015 1:59:51 PM
Creation date
7/13/2015 1:59:21 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
285
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 1VIEETING <br /> Monday, FeUruary 13,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> would rather than eventually removed. I�l addition, the Plamling Conuiussion felt that conversion of the <br /> accessoiy building to a more habitable space by the addition of plumUing would change tl�e use of that <br /> nonconfoniling building from its original storage intent to a more recreational use and that this is an <br /> expansion of a nonconfonnity. <br /> Staff had initially recommended approval subject to the Plaiuiing Coinmission concluding that there <br /> would be no visual impacts to the neighborhood. The conclusion that the addition of plumbing and the <br /> reconstiliction of the deck next to the building would convert this to a hi�her-intensity use is a coml�elling <br /> argument in favor of denial. Staff would calrtion that the owner may have the right to reconstnict the <br /> deck"lll IC1Ild"in its cun•ent location based ou Staie Statutes. However,relocating it clearly requu•es a <br /> variance, and if Council concludes that such a vai-iance would result in expansion of a nonconfonning <br /> use,then denial may be appropriate. <br /> Albeitsson stated their application for the pluuibing was based on 78-303 Item 17 of the zoning code <br /> which states that a toilet is a pennitted use in an accessory building on a lot greater than two acres in size <br /> as long as tl�e residential character of the neighborhood is not altered. Albertsson noted this lot consists <br /> of 4.5 acres and that in their opulion it would not alter the residential character of the neighborhood. <br /> Albertsson stated the difficulty w.ith the lot is the fact that the lot is located on a peninsula, which limits <br /> the buildable area to a small triangle that would allow for a recreational structure to be constructed. <br /> Albertsson stated given the fact tl�at this structtu�e has existed for a long time,the applicant feels it is a <br /> reasonable request for a variance. <br /> Albertsson distributed a tlu�ee-dimensional view of the decic to the Council. Albertsson pointed out the <br /> deck currently sits on a small knoll 11 feet from the shoreline and that they are proposing to relocate the <br /> deck behind the kuoll, which would help to conceal it and lessen its impact on the lake. Til addition,the <br /> size of the deck would be reduced and there would be additional scre�ning of the deck provided, which <br /> �vould also reduce the impact of the decl:and building on the lakesl�ore. <br /> PAGE 13 of 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.