11-20-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NfTNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEI D ON NON'EMBER 20. |QQ5 («6 - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Hardcover excesses do exist, though greatly improved Lot 1 in the 75-250' zone exists at 59 047® 0 and is proposed at 36 03®o Lot 2 hardcover in the 75-250’ zone exists at 36 7^o and is proposed at 33 23® # There is a structural coverage variance required on lot I at 15 6® # where 15® # is allowed Lot 2 is under the allowed amount at 10 6%. There were no public comments Neveaux said the hardcover on Lot 2 was unnecessarvf Peterson noted a petition signed by 31 neighbors voicing their concern for the need for demolition and removal of structures fhc petition was dated October 6, IW5 and read into the minutes Mabusth said the petition was sent out by the adjacent new homeowner and came to Stall ’s attention on this date Mabusth said the applicant, Cttterhauser, was to have removed the structure by September of 1995 She had informed the new homeowner that this was a private matter that needed to be resolved with Oberhauser Mabusth said Neveaux was made aware of the hazardous conditions of the structure and its lack of maintenance The stmeture is open and able to be accessed Peterson noted the neighbors' unhappiness with the applicant. Mabusth asked if there was a schedule for the remov al of the structure. Neveaux said there w as no definite schedule but tied to the process He was not aw are of the scope of danger He had thought the structures were boarded up and would pass on the information to the applicant Smith asked if there has been any inspection of the property by the applicant or his representative and whether the problem was incidental or anecdotal Neveaux said the applicant had lived there until July of 1995. Smith questioned if the property had been inspected by applicant seen since July or the condition reported to the applicant. Berg said the structure was still there and was surprised that the City would allow it to be there Mabusth said if the structure is boarded and safe, it can be allowed to remain. The goal, in this case, was to remove the structure. Mabusth asked the representativ e if the applicant wanted to gain approval on the subdivision, if he would be willing to remov e all structures including the rental unit Smith asked if this could be done within 60 days. Neveaux said he did not know. Smith asked if this could be done before it is sold. Neveaux did not think it was contingent with the buyer being in place. 15