Laserfiche WebLink
.dTES OP TUE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD HAY 28, 1985. PAGE A <br />Acting Mayor Frahm advised Asplund that after the patios are <br />removed, that the ground should be sodded. <br />Councilmember L. Adams noted that he has a problem approving <br />anything in the 0-75' setback area. <br />Councilmember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, <br />to adopt Resolution 11768, A Resolution denying variances <br />for the fence and patio concrete requ^^'t with a deadline date <br />for removal of patios for June 11, for 3424 Eastlake <br />Street and July 23, 1985, for 3444 Eastlake Street and the <br />request for deck platform and screened porch to be referred <br />to the Planning Commission for thei * review. Motion, Ayes <br />(2), Nays (1). <br />Councilmember T. Adams voted nay..' <br />#897 CHUCK PETERSON <br />825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />Cnuck Peterson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis­ <br />trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconfirmed the dry <br />buildable area that Council requested at the last meeting. <br />Gaffron confirmed that there is 2.0 acres of dry buildable <br />per lot in the area identified strictly as a seasonal <br />drainageway. <br />Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams <br />seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision <br />application'of Chuck Peterson. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). <br />#903 WARD FERRELL <br />3405 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />ZONING APPEAL <br />II <br />Mr. and Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present. Assistant Zoning <br />Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was <br />brought in under a zoning appeal in order to save the <br />applicant some money. Gaffron explained that if the <br />applicant had applied for a variance that the application <br />would be more costly and with the Council's past precedents <br />the Council would probably have denied the application. <br />City Attorney Radio asked how much the full variance <br />application would have cost. Radio noted that by allowing <br />this applicant the appeals procedure the City is saving the <br />applicant money, but by handling this matter the City is not <br />treating this application as a variance and not using the <br />same standards. Radio noted that the decision reached <br />tenight does not presume that the same decision would be <br />reached on a formal variance application. <br />p <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the <br />variance application would be $150, plus the applicant's <br />expense for additional surveying work, plus the extra <br />expense for septic testing for each lot. Gaffron estimated <br />I <br />J