01-22-1979 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

‘ HKGUL/\R !l££TING OF THE ORONO COU>;CTL, ;-.0VK.VM-;R 28, 1978 Page 4 The City is asfted to author ire extra expense* by the City Attorney and the City Engineer to under- ) take studies requested by the Planning CouTtssion. According to ordinance, the Council nay direct that such charges be paid by the applicant. CON’DlTrONAL USE PER.’-!: VARIANCE 26 77 Casco Point Roai. (Continued) •7 The attorney has already answered the Planning Conmission's questions. The ipplicant's attorney has requested time ♦'O submit his own , - additional engineering before the City undertakes-^'^-. a special study. The staff recommends that no // j unusual engineering studies be undertaken but that the City Engineer should review the applicant's submittals according to normal procedures. :r'"A .V >*\ The City Council is asked whether or not to reopen variance case #417 concerning a garage on the property. A complaining neighbor has charged violation of the variance and has requested re.- review along with the other natters. Staff recora- nends that the variance was properly reviewed, proper permits were subsequently issued, and the building is being built within the code and variance requirements. We recommend not reopening the case at this time. 0 Mr. Mitchell, the applicant's attorney, requested by letter that no work be ordered v/hich would be chargeable to his client and that he be allowed tine to respond to all matters. Mr. Nekich, by telephone, agreed to the delay but did restate his request for an‘independent City engineering review. Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to deny authoritv for unusual City engineering expenses, limiting engineering costs to the normal review procedures; to decline to reopen variance case #417 according to staff recommendations and to defer all substantive review of the issues until after the Planning Cofiunission makes a study of the facts and presents recommendations to the Council. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).