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—ConHnued <br />Mr. Tim asked why they weren’t notified of the issue at the November 24*** meeting. <br />Gaffron replied that a city-wide ordinance requires notice being published in the <br />newspaper, and there was no requirement to notify individual residents. <br />Murphy stated there are plenty of residents who arc happy with the ordinance, and the <br />City can never please everyone. <br />White stated that they want to keep commercial use in the commercial district. Most of <br />Orono lives on small or narrow lots where they are affected by their neighbors. <br />Mrs. Tim asked if they would be fined for continuing to use the truck. White stated they <br />would not; that there is a 6-month transition period and staff would work with them in the <br />meantime. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />6. #02*2858 Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road—Variance—Resolution No. 5089 <br />The applicant was not present. <br />Gaffron stated that Bruce Vang informed him that the offending deck had been removed, <br />and so the application was functionally withdrawn. They could deny the application to <br />make a statement, or could take no action. <br />Barrett stated that the review period had been e.xtended to December 24"’, and as they had <br />no formal withdrawal from the applicant. Council should deny the application. He stated <br />that if they took no action, and the applicant came back, it could be automatically <br />approved by the lack of action. <br />Murphy asked if the resolution would be included in a file w ith the property so that any <br />future ow ners would see that the City had denied an application for a deck. <br />Murphy moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5089 denying an after- <br />the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-281 (A) & (B); 78-282; 78- <br />1279; and 78-1288 to retain the 8' x 12' deck adjacent to the boathouse, and <br />requiring that the deck be removed by January’ 1,2004, and requiring that the <br />applicant take whatever reasonable measures may be required by the Orono <br />Building Official to ensure the patio door access adjacent to the deck be left in a safe <br />condition. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.