Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 27,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(*7. m-3051 KEVIN AND JVUE FITZPATRICK, 3 S6 WESTLAKE STREET, Continued) <br />McMillan acknowledged that the applicant had every right to build his home if it met the height <br />and 10 ’ side setbacks; however, it was her opinion that the out building should not be there and <br />consideration could be given to expanding the size of the attached garage instead. <br />As mentioned earlier, due to the long horizontal nature of the lot, Fitzpatrick felt the accessory <br />garage/shed, designed to compliment and match the home, would go far in breaking up the long <br />narrow lot. <br />Murphy urged the applicant to sit down with the neighbors one more time to try to meet some of <br />their conditions or come to some agreements over the application. <br />Fitzpatrick reiterated that he had responded to their requests immediately last week and had agreed <br />to meet several of them, adding additional landscaping around the out building, removing <br />buckthorn, undergrounding utilities, changing the garage to one story, and minimizing north and <br />south windows. While meeting their request for 12 ’ setbacks would be difficult to accomplish with <br />an already skinny house, he believed he had gone to great lengths to accommodate the neighbors’ <br />requests. <br />Murphy continued, asking whether the applicant would sit down to discuss the conditions again <br />with these neighbors. <br />Fitzpatrick stated that, while he appreciated their candor about their expectations, he believed he <br />could literally do nothing more to satisfy the neighbors’ concerns. <br />Given the compromises alluded to by the applicant. White asked what the opposing neighbors <br />might be willing to do for the Fitzpatricks in return. <br />Cronin stated that the neighbors have come to accept the fact that a house will be built on the <br />property; however, he stated they would still entertain a meeting to discuss the house plans with the <br />applicant. <br />Murphy reiterated his position that, even with past precedent, he found it difficult to support the <br />hardship. <br />Sansevere stated that, while he would not make a motion contingent upon a meeting with the <br />neighbors, he questioned the City Attorney once again whether he was satisfied with the hardship <br />of lot size.