My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:15:41 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:21 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
264
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Mooday, June 17,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />done, they did not file an application or join in the application. <br />Mr. Stephenson questioned the purpose for an after-the-fact application in the first place if the City does <br />not approve them. <br />Berg stated that they are available in order to allow the City to correct what was done improperly. <br />Mr. Stephenson coated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing his <br />work today. <br />Rahn clarified that by not filing the application, Mr. Stephenson would not be excused from correcting <br />the problem, in fact, the City had sent him notice to do so. <br />Mr. Stephenson argued that the reasoning behind his denials are not due to the fact that they are not <br />reasonable, but that they were not approved ahead of time. He questioned if he had come to the <br />Commission with his neighbors to apply for a CUP to clear and fill the area originally would he have <br />been granted approval, he argued yes. <br />Smith disagreed, and stated that the Commission likely would not have approved the way it was done. <br />Rahn stated that the approval had required a IS’ setback to the sides, and he is currently in his neighbors <br />property, which already reflects a 30’ encroachment without ever going to the neighbors. For this, and <br />other reasons, he argued that the Commission would not have given approval to the variances as Mr. <br />Stephenson believed. <br />(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON ID, Continued) <br />Bellows moved, Fritxicr seconded, to deny the Aftcr-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance <br />for Application #02-2793, Revis Stephenson m, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, for additional fill to be <br />added to bis property at slopes beyond wbat was recommended and the placement of soil on <br />neighbors property. It is further recommended that all three staff recommendations are followed <br />PAGE 23 OF 42
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.