02-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LIQUOR VIOLATION PENALTY Continued) For clarification. White stated that it was the City Council that made the mistake at the last Council meeting allowing the public hearing after the police department representative was called away to another meeting. The police department was by no means, at fault. In fact, White stated the department representative was on time to the meeting, it was the other side that was late, thus delaying the public hearing. Since the public hearing was delayed, the police department representative was called away. White pointed out that the Council should not have considered the issue and held the public hearing without having both sides present, therefore they will be rescheduling the public hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4/0. Mayor Peterson noted that the rescheduled public hearing would likely take place at the first City Council meeting in February. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *3. #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, 2817 CASCO POINT ROAD - PLAN REVISIONS Gaffron explained that the applicant was granted a 75-250’ hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot arca/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation will remain, without structural repairs. Gaffron noted that a condition of approval was that if it was determined that the existing foundation would need to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals would be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house was 6 ’ from the side lot line where a 10 ’ setback was required. Unclear also, during the original review, was that the roofiine in the substandard setback was intended to be raised, requiring a side setback variance, which was not addressed in the approval. Only recently, the building inspector noted that the second stor>- of the existing residence had be.n completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Gaffron added, that further, it has been determined that the portion of foundation below the first story wall with substandard setback is not adequate to support the first floor without major repairs, much less replacement of the second story. Gaffron pointed out that replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance. At a public hearing on January 22, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the issues. The adjacent neighbor nearest the structure made PAGE 3 of 28