07-15-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 JabW explained how the ordinances work. Prior to ordinances being adopted, propertv- owners could do whatever activities they wanted legally. When they continue to do these aairities after they are no longer allowed by ordinance, it is considered legally non-conforming. If the activity "“"-conforming. When an activity h legally non-confoiming, it is referred to as "grandfathered in". Oaffron agreed that the keeping of horses on this property is legally non-conforming. ^ ^ on Ihtc clarification of legally, non-conforming. Jabbour explained that when horses were on this property many years ago, it was legal to have horses there. Ih!J? «aff review represented in a 6 page letter to Dalbec. Staff concluded that there has been a continuous existence of horses on the property, and therefore the use should be ihe Tl"*-'” ”h'‘" P™Wem exists as indicated in the report from Jeremy Geske of enti^Zentlf '"‘c inspections, Oaffron also concluded that no environmental problems were created as a result of the horses. The fact that the property is less than 4 acres is not a factor in the decision to allow the horses to remain because they have been there continuously. Nothing in the information in the City's files suggest that there was any intent on the City or the property owner s part to not have horses. The horse bam and corral were allowed to t™rd^950'‘s "" ” "" ™ “• T*' u° V? responded that he had spent at least 25 hours, wd probably another 10 or 15 hours with other staff members and the City IhSs “ ” Commission have been involved in researching Preperiy- Mnny ta.xpayer dollars have been spent to teach this conclusion. There has been ” '''“™n* Commission. If there is any bias, it is toward Dalbec Since so much time has been spent to research the issue. n'i"" prapnny- 0“®“" confirmed that Muiphy/Smith own LoU 10 the “i"? *'i,°' “ '“PPO""'from Mrs. Bordson, a neighbor to uuot 37 12 -