12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\"c MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.ni. (5. U04‘3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued) Sanscvcrc stated that he believed the applicant should be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. of living space. Vogstrom stated that, according to the tax record, the property ts referenced at 40,000 s.f.; however, with the lagoon factored in the property diminishes to 14,000 s.f Once again, McMillan stated that 36% was too much, 25% loo small, and suggested the applicant continue to work with staff to analyze what percent is allowable. Gaffron reminded Council that 1,500 s.f. is a limit on a 10,000 s.f. or less lot, not a right. Murphy moved, White seconded, to table Application 1104-3052, Eric Vogstrom, to allow the applicant to continue to work with staff on a revised proposal. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Sansevere asked what made the applicant, or his contractor, think they could remove all of the established trees on the parcel without pemr.ssion. Vogstrom stated that he had the tree trimmer in attendance for questions. Mayor Peterson stated that this was not the forum for this discussion and would be addressed at another time. 6. #04-3055 DR. MARTHA SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRI\T. SOUTH - VARIANCE - DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 5255 Dr. Spencer stated that until she received the denial resolution in the mail she had no idea that she was being required to remove her dog kennel. She felt this was excessive penalty for this item to have not been missed on surveys, missed by those who visited her property, and missed altogether had she not mentioned it in a previous meeting. She argued that her representative did not have the right to offer to remove it, since they would have no idea w hether she intended to purchase another dog in the future. Dr. Spencer stated that the cement kennel has always been there, it w as not a secret, nor should it be req ired to be removed as her hardcover is a mere 8% on her property. White stated that he was willing to allow it. Mayor Peterson acknowledged that it was unfortunate that she was unable to attend the past meeting, when her rcprcsciitalivc made this submission. She indicated that she felt it was an error overlooked by many parties; therefore, she would allow it to remain. McMillan stated that it seemed to be an oversight that was not precedent setting. Barrett agreed that the Council would be within its rights to allow it or remov e it. .Mc.Millan moved. Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5255, a resolution denying the applicants variance request,, with item #7 removed regarding the removal of the dog kennel. V’OTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Sansevere and Murphy opposed. PAGE 6 of 11 1