My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-12-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1997-1999
>
1997
>
05-12-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 3:45:10 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 3:40:36 PM
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.
/
250
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 28,1997 <br />CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT <br />(#18) REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL ACTION ON FOX HOLLOW <br />PLAT - JAMES BRUCE <br />Moorse explained that this situation is a result of the plat that was approved approximately two <br />years ago. An existing cottage on Lot 2 was allowed to remain as an accessory structure to the <br />principal structure that would be constructed at some time in the future. Although this was <br />discussed in numerous memos and at meetings, there was no specific action taken by the <br />Planning Commission on this item. Mr. Bruce read the staff reports and resolution and <br />understood that the cottage would be allowed to remain with completion of covenants stating the <br />cottage would not be used as a separate dwelling unit. The applicant is seeking clarification of <br />Council's intent when approving the plat that the cottage could remain as an accessory st ucture. <br />At that time, Council was dealing with similar situations by stating that if there was no kitchen, <br />the structure could remain but would not be useable as a principal structure. Since that time, <br />removal of additional plumbing has also been discussed. <br />Kelley asked if this type of accessory structure is allowed in this zoning district if it meets <br />setback requirements. Moorse thought this structure met the required setbacks. If that was the <br />case, Kelley would approve the structure as long as plumbing and the kitchen was removed. <br />Goetten disagreed because at the time of the original approval, she thought just the removal of <br />the kitchen was required. Since that time Council has added removal of plumbing in similar <br />situations. <br />Bruce commented that there were no negative comments throughout the approval process and he <br />was unaware this would even be an issue when applied for a permit. <br />Jabbour asked if Bruce would be agreeable to removing the plumbing. <br />Bruce responded that he would not, since only the kitchen was to be removed at the time of the <br />original approval. <br />Jabbour asked how connection to the sewer would be achieved. Bruce responded that this <br />accessory structure would be part of the new principal structure and would not require a separate <br />sewer connection. <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.