My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-27-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
11-27-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 3:03:38 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 3:01:50 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.
/
201
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
(r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13,1995 <br />(#13 - #2079 Rick Peny - Continued) <br />Mabusth noted the elevations of the property. The ability to access to the rear of the <br />property is very tight. The only gently sloped ,vea is in the rear and is needed as an <br />ihemate septic site. This leaves the only suitable area for expansion wthin the street <br />yanl <br />The amended addition at 20*x22* would be redesigned to minimize the height from the <br />street and side. Mabusth noted that all of the neighbors have signed off on their <br />acknowledgement forms. <br />Callahan and Goetten said they were both at the Planning Commission meeting and did <br />not feel that the Planning Commission erred in their actions. <br />Callahan commented that the addition is the same as requested in the 1970 s. Mabusth <br />said the additional area is needed for the applicant's collector cars and storage needs of a <br />maturing family. <br />Jabbour said he saw enough hardship to place the structure in front of the principal <br />structure with the narrowness ot the lot for a side setback variance. He believes the <br />applicant has the right to the garage, and the location is satisfactory due to the <br />topography of the land. <br />Mabusth said the Planning Commission questioned how much accessory structure should <br />be necessary. She did note, howev er, that the addition would still keep property under <br />the allowed total area for accessory structures on this property <br />Callahan said an approval would not be granted for other reasons such as business use it <br />not used for the applicant's collection. Perry said it was his desire to keep his vehicles <br />and equipment stored inside He would like to remain living on this property and would <br />be willing to enter into a covenant calling for elimination of the structure if he moved. <br />Goetten said she was concerned with additional structure. Perry' said the property would <br />not support any more structure. <br />Jabbour said he had no problem with the application. <br />Mabusth noted the applicant proposes reduction in structure size, the planting of <br />landscaping and minimizing the roof line She also said the applicant was willing to <br />execute a covenant to remove the structure if he moved The Council did not want such <br />a covenant. <br />Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Application #2079 and directed Staff to <br />prepare a formal resolution for Council action at the November 27, 1995, meeting. V( <br />Ayes 4, Nays 0.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.