Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 25,2004 <br />7:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />(5. #04-3007 HAROLD AND MILDRED BOWER, 1925 LAKE VIEW TERRACE, <br />Continued) <br />Murphy questioned how this would impact the future development cf the lot or whether a covenant <br />could be attached to the sale. <br />Attorney Barrett stated that the Resolution would be filed with the deed for the land. <br />6. #04-3024 ZONING AMENDMENT - PERMIT FOR LARGE V EHICLES <br />McMillan complimented staff and the Planning Commission for coming up with a solution to this <br />problem. <br />Gaffron read item ‘g’, a condition added to Zoning Section 78-1577 and its accompanying <br />requirements as the proposed amendment and asked for comment. <br />Mrs. Timm asked for further explanation of item T requiring that, in a shared driveway situation, <br />an agreement be signed by all current driveway users be placed on file with the City. <br />Sansevere questioned why an additional agreement would be required of users, since an agreement <br />for easements already exists. lie suggested that item ‘f be removed. <br />Gaffron questioned whether an additional agreement granting this use was necessary. <br />Attorney Barrett slated that the City should avoid, as it has attempted to do in this amendment, <br />taking sides on private land use issues. He voiced concern regarding City involvement, where there <br />is an casement, and cautioned the City of including item T. He stated that, in situations where <br />shared driveways would otherwise allow access, the casement agreement should remain as it is, <br />and the burden to prove othenvise would be upon the other applicant. <br />Sansevere maintained that a resident in a shared driveway situation should be allowed to use the <br />driveway, period. There have never been conditions put upon the casement when people have set <br />up shared driveway agreements in the past. <br />Murphy moved. White seconded, to direct staff to bring Zoning Code Amendment Section <br />78-1577 (C)2a - Large Vehicle Storage Permit - Ordinance No. back for formal approval on <br />November 8,2004, revising item T to reflect a demonstration that a shared driveway <br />agreement exists. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />7. #04-3048 STEVEN AND KATHLEN PERSIAN, 1005 HUNT FAR.M ROAD - <br />VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO. 5238 <br />Gaffron reported that, w hilc the applicant had revised his proposal to limit the building to the <br />allowed 1,200 s.f. area, he still requests the variance to locate the building closer to the street or <br />front lot line than the principal residence. Gaffron noted that staff would recommend adoption of <br />the resolution which documents the original and revised proposals, and approves the proposed <br />variance. He {rointcd out that addition on page 3 of 6 of the resolution under item »2, w hich <br />denotes 'Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit an opinion letter from his <br />attorney on whether the property owner has the legal right to construct the proposed accessory <br />PAGE 4 of 10