My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 11:21:14 AM
Creation date
1/25/2023 11:15:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 28,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(to. 004-3024 CITY OF ORONO, ZONtSGAMESDMENTS, Continued) <br />b) LARGE VEHICLE STORAGE <br />Gafiron explained that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on whether it might be <br />appropriate to amend the Ordinance regarding storage of large vehicles, with regards to lots of area <br />2 - 4.99 acres with pre-existing large vehicle storage situations. Mrs. Timm was present at the <br />hearing and spoke regarding her plight. Gaffron stated that staff concurs with the Planning <br />Commission's unanimous recommendation that the ordinance remain as is and not be amended, <br />nor ‘grand-fathenng’ allowed, since impacts of large vehicles on 2 acre lots can be more than just <br />visual. <br />Sansevere questioned if the Timms had determined whether they might be able to move their <br />driveway to the other side of their property. <br />Gaffron stated that they have concluded that moving the driveway to the other side would not <br />work; however, the Timms arc considering putting in a parallel driveway on their property ’ next to <br />the existing one. <br />Although he did believe many others were impacted by this new ordinance, Sansevere stated that <br />he w ould prefer to grandfather some of these situations or consider them on a casc-by-casc basis. <br />He was uncomfortable forcing these people with a pre-existing condition out of business with the <br />new ordinance. He feared that the City was going out of its way to eliminate its working class <br />people with this hasty ordinance. <br />Gaffron pointed out that other concerns exist. <br />White agreed that he w'as compelled to look at these situations on a casc-by-case basis, since the <br />City would be virtually eliminating this resident's way of living. <br />While the neighbor has expressed his desire to pave the existing shared driveway, Sansevere noted <br />that he had been hesitant to do so with the large vehicle traversing it. 1 le reiterated that the Timm’s <br />situation and similar cases should be examined on a casc-by-case basis and repeated the need for <br />them to obtain driveway access on their own property. In order to be considerate neighbors, <br />Sansevere recognized the need for the Timms to park their truck on the other side of their pro|K*ny. <br />Gaffron .stated that the City could give consideration to w hether to make this a conditional use on <br />properties under 5 acres. <br />Moorsc stated that this would have to be a condition afforded only pre-existing uses He pointed <br />out that, beyond visual, the noi.se and odors were the key issues. <br />(iaffron pointed out that he could not support grandfathering, nor policing these exceptions. <br />McMillan slated that she could see where each party was coming from with this situation and asked <br />if this was a common ordinance. She obsers ’ed that, as the rural character clashes wath the newly <br />suburban mix in Orono, the City will continue to struggle with these types of issues. <br />PAGE 16 of 19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.