Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 14,2005 <br />7:00 o ’clock p.nL <br />*04. 005-3157 MARTHA T. MASON ON BEHALF OF SARA MOOS, 2160 WEBBER fflLLS <br />ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5398 <br />Mnrphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5398, a Resolution <br />granting front yard setback variances for the property located at 2160 Webber Hills. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />*#5. 005-3160 JUDSON M. DAYTON, 825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - LOT UNE <br />REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 5399 <br />Mnrphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5399, a Resolution approving a <br />snbdivi^n of a lot Hne rearrangement and creation of an ingress/egress easement for properties <br />located at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />GATE HEIGHT APPEAL CONTINUATION <br />Paul Zisla, Attomey-at-Law, and Jim Anthony, Representative of Simply Automation, appeared on behalf <br />of the Applicant. <br />Mwfdiy noted a hearing has been scheduled for November 21" in front of the Planning Commission. <br />Gundlach stated there is a zoning amendment hearing scheduled for November 21 ” on the new ordinance. <br />Barrett stated in his opinion the appeal and the zoning ordinatKe amendment are two separate items. <br />Barrett stated to his understanding the property owner had proceeded to construct the monuments and had <br />apparently bought the gates on a special order. Barrett stated he had misunderstood that initially and that <br />it was his understanding that the applicant had approached the City to inquire about what their statutes <br />allowed. <br />Barrett stated this is a diflerent situation in his view since the landowner has proceeded in what is <br />probably a pretty reasonable interpreution of the code. Barrett stated he requested Attorney Ziska to <br />write a letter to the Council laying out the facts. Barrett encouraged the Council to test the facts asserted, <br />and if the Council is satisfied that those facts are true, then it would be reasonable to say that the City did <br />not have a direct lefereiKe to gate height in our ordinaiKcs at the time the application was submitted. <br />Barrett stated if the Council finds that the City did not have a direct refereiKe in their ordinance referring <br />to height of gates, then the new ordinance would qrply to future qiplications and not to this homeowner. <br />Murphy stated it was his understanding that the reason the Council agreed not to pursue this application <br />was the fact that the City had a discussion pending about gate heights. <br />■f