My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-23-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
02-23-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 8:52:34 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 1:20:52 PM
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.
/
357
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, FEBRUARY 9,2004 <br />Sansevere asked if he had made a decision about combining the lots. Mr. Dayton stated <br />they had been waiting to hear from the City, and realizes that if they decide not to move <br />the bam or combine the parcels, they will have to remove it. <br />Sansevere stated that he appreciates the bam as a piece of Orono’s past, and feels it does <br />not detract from the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Hoyt stated that the bam is a fire and safety hazard. <br />Murphy asked if he objected more to the location or condition of the bam. Mr. Hoyt <br />stated he objects to both. <br />Mr. Dayton stated that he has never had complaints about the bam before. Their proposal <br />would take care of these complaints, moving and renovating the bam. <br />Mr. Hoyt stated he had lived in his home for 3 years and was one of the first to move into <br />the neighborhood. They were told the bam would be incorporated into an 8,000 s.f. home <br />at the time they purchased their lot. <br />Sansevere asked about requirements the City could place on the barn's renovation. <br />Barrett stated that Council could require as a part of the variance that after it is moved, it <br />be brought into a suitable, or reasonable, condition. Moorse stated it was up to Council <br />how to define a reasonable condition. <br />Mr. Dayton stated that he would move the bam away from the neighboring properties, <br />turn it and landscape around it. <br />Mabusth stated that Mr. Dayton would be required to get a building permit to re-locate the <br />bam. That process would allow some involvement of the City. He stated the Dayton’s <br />accessory structures are well kept. She noted that the Planning Commission had wanted a <br />deadline of July 31, not July 21 “ as it appears in the Resolution. <br />Mr. Hoyt stated that if Council allows the bam to remain, he would like a time limit <br />placed upon it. <br />Barrett stated that the structure would never be allowed to be used as a residence. He <br />stated that when the building is moved, it will need to be made stmcturally sound at that <br />time. <br />Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission wants the lots combined and the bam <br />moved by July 31,2004, or the bam will have to be destroyed by that date. Once the <br />building permit is issued, it is valid for one year.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.