My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-12-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
01-12-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2023 12:38:26 PM
Creation date
1/19/2023 12:27:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, DECEMBER 8,2003 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS—Continued <br />GafTron read from the ordinance that parking in a residential district of vehicles in excess <br />of 14,000 pounds requires: a lot size of S-acres, property owner must be vehicle owner or <br />operator, vehicle must be set back SO' from property lines, must not be visible from <br />neighboring properties and public streets, maintenance shall occur within a closed <br />building, vehicle shall not create a nuisance of any kind, and in a shared driveway <br />situation the City must have on file a signed agreement from all driveway users. <br />White asked if the Tim’s share a driveway. Mr. Tim stated that they do. Mrs. Tim stated <br />that they have the property with the bam painted “Class of ’04.’’ She stated that Mr. Tim <br />left and returned to the property once each day, and he parks the truck on the south side of <br />the garage. <br />Sansevere asked if the truck could go *.n the bam. Mr. Tim replied it is not stable enough. <br />Sansevere asked about some kind of grandfathering clause. Barrett stated that this form of <br />regulatory ordinance, in his judgement, did not automatically create a constitutional right <br />to grandfather where a truck is parked on the property. Council could make a decision <br />concerning the issue, but the ordinance itself did not allow for it. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if Mr. Tim would have to apply for a variance. Barrett stated that <br />Council could amend the ordinance to grandfather or not, as they choose, but the <br />ordinance itself made no allowance for grandfathering. <br />Murphy asked Mr. Tim if his neighbors’ had issues with the truck. Mr. Tim stated that his <br />neighbor did not like the truck. He stated he tried to be respectful of people. <br />Murphy stated Council should be careful about grandfathering someone without getting <br />all the information they need from any and all concerned parties. He stated that with the <br />6-month transition period, there was no need to take action at present. <br />Gaffron stated that there was potential for a variance application, which would involve a <br />public hearing, at which time Council would get the chance to hear from neighbors. <br />Mayor Peterson asked how long they ’ve lived in their home. Mrs. Tim replied they ’d <br />been there nine years, and the neighbor for five. <br />Sansevere asked who they dealt with on staff w hen they requested permission to get the <br />tmek. Mrs. Tim replied that person had moved on, but she had a letter from 2003 <br />concerning an in-home occupation. Sansevere stated that if the City approved his use of <br />the truck, the onus fell on the City to work something out. <br />Mayor Peterson directed staff to review the matter.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.