My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-27-2006 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
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 MEETING <br /> Monday,February 13, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3171 John and Joan Brooks, Continued) <br /> Floyd indicated he is worried that the City is taking a snucture that has been grandfathered in as a garage <br /> and is now expanding the use. <br /> Murphy inquired what Mr. Floyd's concern is with the expanded use. <br /> Floyd stated regardless of the acreage of the lot, there is only supposed to be one dwelling on the lot and <br /> that this would now increase the dwellings to three. <br /> Sansevere stated it is not the intent of the City that this structure would become a dwelling. <br /> Floyd stated the City had no intention in 1983 that this structure would Uecome a recreational facility. <br /> White stated he does not want to discuss what happened in 1983. White noted he did attend the Planning <br /> Commission meeting and has read through all the materials relating to this application. White stated he <br /> understands Mr. Floyd is opposed to the expanded use and that there also is a concern that the structure <br /> will turn into living space. White stated the City has already detei-mined that the applicant does have <br /> access to this structure. White requested Mr. Floyd limit his conunents to tonight's application and not <br /> what happened in 1983. <br /> Floyd stated his comments in his letter relating to hardship directly relate to the application and that there <br /> are deficiencies and omissions in the applicant's application. <br /> Gaffron stated the survey submitted by the applicant is relatively detailed and that the only itein with the <br /> survey is that it does not clearly show the driveway access. Gaffron stated Staff accepted the survey in <br /> good faith and that in his opinion the survey is not deficient as it relates to this application. <br /> Mur�hy inquired whether a local surveyor completed the survey. <br /> Gaffron indicated it was. <br /> Albertsson stated she directly spoke with the surveyor and requested that the survey depict the pertinent <br /> issues relating to their application tonight. Albertsson stated it is her understanding there are a numUer of <br /> surveys that depict the property. <br /> Muiphy noted the City Attorney is willing to worlc with Mr. Floyd on the driveway access and the other <br /> issues raised by him in his letter. Murphy inquired whether there is another access to this property. <br /> Brokl stated there is an alternate access that could be provided. <br /> Floyd noted that it was his understanding the City requires a variance for any fence located within 75' feet <br /> of the lake but that he has been infonned of a new process whereby a property owner is allowed to sit <br /> down with Mr. Gappa and he detennines whether something should be allowed. <br /> PAGE 16 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.