My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-10-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
10-10-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 12:30:30 PM
Creation date
1/12/2023 11:55:26 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.
/
450
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 CFTY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, Sq>tember 26,2005 <br />7:00 0 clock p.m. <br />(7. H$5-3134 TROY BROITZMAN, SHCMEUNE DRIVE, CtH^ued) <br />the land and not be imposed because the land does not fit the design of the applicant’s proposed <br />home. <br />Jenny Charrier, 1910 HeriUge Drive, the opposite immediate neighbor, acknowledged that, though <br />the applicant can develop the property, she questioned the scale to which they proposed to do so. <br />She stated diat she would be subjected to viewing an enormous wall the entire length of her <br />driveway and property line, views obstructed and entirely shaded, and any sense of (nivacy that <br />once existed would be greatly compromised. <br />Charlie Kiogness, 185 S. Brown Road, stated that this proposal was absolutely not reflective of the <br />character of Orono that the Rural Oasis Study was implemented to preserve. He urged the City <br />Council, in all good conscience, not to support such an atrocity. <br />Sansevere stated that, spec home or not, the proposed home did not fit the character of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that she could not support the CUP and found no reason to support the <br />variance request, which simply allowed the applicant to build the design of his choice. She <br />suggested he go back to meet with staff and design a proposal that fit the property. <br />Broitzman pointed out that his biggest concern centered on the fact that the wording of the CUP <br />doesn’t set limits, as a moving target, he would not know what is acceptable or not While he <br />maintained diat the size of his structure fell within the 15% allowance and that he has met height <br />restrictions, he did not understand the letter of the law as it pertained to the CUP. <br />Sansevere asked the applicant whether he had consulted with staff when he put together his <br />proposal to move 5,400 cubic yards of fill or asked for input with regard to the lot width variance <br />to see if diese were reasonable requests. <br />Broitzman stated that he had worked with the Engineer to determine how the drainage would work <br />out with his design. He pointed out that he was within his legal rights to take down the dees he did, <br />as he preferred a view of the lake to trees. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that the City Council could vote on his application as presented which might <br />mean he could not come before Council again for 6 months, or he could table his application for <br />redesign purposes. <br />Broitzman requested that the City Council table his application. <br />White indicated that he would not allow the applicant to lay a virtual parking lot next to a <br />neighbor’s property in a residential neighborhood, as this i^an proposal clearly does not fit the <br />character of Orono. <br />Murphy acknowledged that the applicant wished to be given a strict interpretation of everything, as <br />opposed to what obviously fits within the City conq> plan. He stated that, in his opinion, the <br />PAGE 7 of 10 <br />T <br />4 <br />• i <br />' !
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.