Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 25,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p m. <br />Sansevcre asked whether there was hardship for the initial variance request. <br />Gaffron noted that there was hardship for the previous application; however, none exist for this <br />application. <br />Mark Ritter, applicant’s representative, stated that it was their intent to make the backyard usable <br />and safer. <br />Dr. Spencer pointed out that these items were inadvertently left out of the previous application and <br />noted that the earlier application actually decreased hardcover. She indicated that it was difficult to <br />maneuver the property due to her physical limitations, as well as, acknowledged the desire to view <br />more of the yard and stay away from mosquitoes. <br />Murphy stated that the Council could not grant hardship to correct a building error not <br />communicated to the city by a previous contractor. He stated that, in fact, the applicant would have <br />had a difficult time getting this request approved this summer also had it been included. <br />Ritter asked the City Attorney if any ‘grandfathering’ was applicable to this property since it <br />existed prior to the Shorcland Ordinances. <br />Barrett suted that it is within the City’s ability to pant variances to the shoreline ordinance. <br />Gaffron stated that many legal nonconfomiing properties were created by shoreline ordinance; <br />however, while they exist as legal nonconforming structures, additions to those nonconformances <br />arc subject to new ordinance. <br />Sansevere maintained that, if the applicant could demonstrate to the Council that there was a <br />hardship, the Council could support the application. <br />Ritter argued that the backyard was functional prior to the shoreland ordinance. <br />PAGE 9 of 15 <br />1