My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 10:24:49 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:37:59 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.
/
548
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 MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 27,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />6 homes onto Fox Street; whereas, the rationale for the guest house to remain became part of the bargaining <br />process. <br />McMillan stated that she agreed with everything except the allowance for the guest house. <br />Attorn^ Barrett reminded the Council that statute and ords<'::nce requires that a hardship exist to allow the guest <br />house to remain. <br />Gaflh>n stated that a variance would be necessary, since as a back-lot, the guest house needs to be setback 75*. He <br />pointed out that the need to create six lots was the basis for the hardship. <br />stated that be was unable to see how a hardship created by the applicant could be considered a hardship. <br />Oronberg stated that in order to eliminate the second access from Fox Sheet, the applicant was forced to create the <br />back-lot scenario. <br />Attomey Barrett explained that a hardship must be derN-jd from the land, though he could see where moving the <br />road due to problems with the land and the need to delineate septic sites could be articulated into a hardship. <br />Oronberg concurred, adding that avoiding the second access ofTFox Street created an additional hardship. <br />Mayor Peterson asked whether Council members were comfortable with the hardship as articulated by Attomey <br />Barrett, that the guest house be allowed to remain acknowledging the removal of the main house is not imminent <br />Gaffiron questioned in 20 years when the time came to rebuild the guest house, whether this agreement, though put <br />in the chain of title, might be forgotten. He referred to staffs original recommendation duU the guest house be <br />removed. <br />Murphy niovcd« While seconded, that the guest house be rcMovcd if lot 6 is to be considered a bach-lot <br />VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Sanevere, Mayor Peterson, and McMillan dissenting. <br />A <br />K <br />Page! of 17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.