My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
10-11-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 1:35:22 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 1:30:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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 PLANNING COMIVUSSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 20,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />down somewhat. Persian indicated the surrounding vegetation would remain. Persian slated their goal <br />would be to construct one building for storage. <br />Rahn inquired whether the applicant was willing to pursue whether the alternate septic site could be <br />swapped with the building location. <br />Persian stated he has submitted one perk test already and that another perk test maybe necessary if the <br />sites are swapped. Persian indicated the concern he has with swapping the sites is the location of a <br />pressure line that he would prefer not to drive any motorized vehicles over. <br />Rahn stated in his view the structure could be located in a conforming location without the need for a <br />setback variance. <br />Frilzler commented no hardship has been demonstrated for the variance. <br />Persian stated he interprets the ordinance as trying to protect the integrity of the neighbors and that, <br />despite the size, is not a nuisance to the neighbors. <br />Fritzler stated the hardship has to validate the variance, and that he is not in favor of a variance for the <br />setbacks or for the size. <br />Jurgens noted the north line is the property line that abuts the railroad right-of-way. Jurgens inquired <br />whether the setback is necessary due to the size of the building as well as the need to access the building <br />and avoid the mound. <br />Persian stated that is correct, and that the building was also pu.shed back because of the Xcel easement <br />on the property. <br />Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the setback variance since there arc other locations where the <br />structure could be constructed on this lot, noting the house could possibly fit north of the driveway <br />turnaround, which would eliminate the need for one of the setbacks. Jurgens stated simply because one <br />location is not as desirable as another does not constitute a hardship. Jurgens indicated he also has a <br />concern with the size. Jurgens inquired whether the setback requirements change with the size of a <br />structure. <br />PAGE IS • <
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.