My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-08-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
09-08-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 2:55:39 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 2:53:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
183
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 25, 2003 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(PITBIJC COMMENTS, Continued ) <br />('uffi Stated that the Joneses had not requested a height variance. <br />Barrett disagreed with the statement from Gaffron that there is no solid language in the eode of a <br />definition, when in actuality it does state you can go to 2 '/) stories or 30' tall. Barrett cautioned that <br />if the code states 30’ or 2 '4 stories are allowable the City must administrate this based on an <br />accepted interpretation, and apply it systematically to all applications. The City has the ability to <br />define the half story as long as it applies it systematically and reasonably. <br />Sansevere asked if Gaffron could meet with the applicants to resolve the issues. <br />Gaffron slated that the City has issued a permit it is comfortable with. He stated that the only thing <br />that w ould change is telling staff that their interpretation is wrong and the applicants could go thru <br />an administrative appeal process. <br />Barrett agreed that, procedurally, the appeal process would be helpful. Since the applicants had <br />received a permit for work they don’t want, in essence, they have been denied the permit they do <br />want, and it is the denial of that permit by staff that needs to be foeared on and brought before the <br />Council for reconsideration. Barrett was hesitant to encourage the appeal process from the <br />standpoint that staff does not seem to have a strong grip on the facts regarding what constitutes the <br />half story. <br />Murphy asked when the building permit was obtained and applied for and what caused the delay. <br />In addition to the half story definition, Jones acknowledged that they had taken time to redesign the <br />main level living space to accommodate a larger kitchen. <br />Lipa reiterated the fact that they appeared before the Planning Commission 3-4 times in an effort to <br />meet the ever changing defmition of the half story and they wished to save others from the same <br />fate. <br />Jones stated that they had hoped they might be able to move forward on their construction with the <br />Council’s blessings. He repeated that they have not asked for a height variance to accomplish this; <br />however, they cannot ask for a variance to their half story when there is no code to apply it to. <br />As they were unable to meet the deadline to be placed on the agenda, Lipa stated that she had <br />spoken to Moorse and flat out asked him if the Council could make a motion off their public <br />comment piece and he responded that, while it was seldom done, it was possible. <br />Moorse indicated that he advised the applicants to provide a letter for review by the Council prior <br />to the meeting, if possible, on which to base their recommendation, but also indicated that a <br />Council member could choose to make a motion. <br />While he recognized they’d been faced with a frustrating year, part the City’s fault due to the lack <br />of definition and part their own, Murphy did not know how to help other than refemng the Joneses <br />back to staff to work with them to create a plan that could come back formally before Council. He <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />Miua,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.