My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-27-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
04-27-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2015 10:42:01 AM
Creation date
7/15/2015 10:37:25 AM
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.
/
257
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 13, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />__________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 29 of 40 <br /> <br />(8. #14-3690 FRED JOHNSON (C/D PURCHASER), PATRICIA PFEFFER (SELLER), 1565 <br />ORCHARD BEACH PLACE – RESOLUTION NO. 6490 continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the City were to grant the average lakeshore setback variance, it would be similar to the <br />Alness application since that lot also required an average lakeshore setback variance to make it buildable. <br /> <br />Walsh stated an average lakeshore setback variance would make this a buildable lot and eliminate one of <br />the applicants’ arguments. <br /> <br />McMillan noted it would increase the valuation of the lot significantly. <br /> <br />Walsh stated in his view the Council is overreaching. <br /> <br />Levang stated the past documentation is very clear on how many times the variances have been denied, <br />which is also documented in the resolution. <br /> <br />Les Delton, 1535 Orchard Beach Place, stated he appreciates the time the City Council is taking on this <br />application. Delton stated there will probably be a lawsuit but that they knew the property was <br />unbuildable at the time they purchased the lot. Delton stated the neighbor talked to him and his mom <br />talked to him about that. Delton stated the applicant knew at the time they bought the property that it was <br />unbuildable. Delton stated it has also been voted down a number of times and that a house cannot go on <br />the lot because it will not fit. <br /> <br />Lisa Wysocki, 1555 Orchard Beach Road, stated her grandparents purchased their property in 1948 and <br />that it is L-shaped and goes around this property. Wysocki indicated she has been attending City Council <br />meetings since she was 16 and she has never seen a City Council be concerned about a potential lawsuit. <br />Wysocki stated she knows the applicants’ attorney has stood up here several times and threatened a <br />lawsuit but that she has never seen a council cow-tow to anything like that. Wysocki stated she is hoping <br />the Council will not do that today since the lawsuit may or may not happen. <br /> <br />Wysocki stated in addition to the average lakeshore setback, there are a number of other reasons why this <br />property is not buildable. Wysocki stated she has been looking at this property her entire life and the <br />water puddles and experiences runoff from other properties. Wysocki stated the lot does not meet <br />anywhere near any of the requirements. Wysocki stated if it were close, it would be a different story, but <br />that currently the lot is less than one-fifth the size of any home in the area. <br /> <br />Wysocki noted the house the applicants are proposing will block their views. In the CMP Orono has <br />language stating that there is a clear right of property owners to have a view of the lake. If there is a <br />house built on this property, it will impede their view of the lake. Wysocki stated she feels for Patricia <br />Pfeffer but that her husband unfortunately made a bad investment, which does not mean the rest of the <br />neighbors need to be negatively impacted by it. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted in the Alness application, the average lakeshore setback variance was the only variance <br />they needed and that there was no longer a need for the width and lot area variances once that was <br />granted. Gaffron stated the lot met the criteria under the state statute. <br />City Council Meeting April 27, 2015 Page 31 of 257
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.