09-13-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 (#5) #1829 DIANNE SIEFF, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL - CONT. Kelley asked who Roy Benson was. Sieff replied that it was her ex-husband. Kelley noted the hardship was no longer prevailing since Mr. Benson with his back problems no longer lives at the house. This makes hardship use of the deck no longer necessary. Kelley felt the deck could be moved back to what it was prior to construction and continue with the removal of the shed next to the lake. Sieff explained the hardship she was referring to was the next door neighbor using her driveway, not ^nson with his back problems. Mabusth explained that a 10’ x 8’ deck addition was constructed without application and would have required a variance review because of excesses of hardcover. Kelley reiterated that the hardship no longer exists. Jabbour stated the hardship should be tied to the land, not the applicant. Since the shed was there before the deck addition, Jabbour asked if the City could require the removal of the shed. Mabusth added that the decks were there before the ordinances in 1975. Kelley asked if Jabbour wanted to trade removal of the shed for the deck. Jabbour responded that you have to look at what is the worst of two possibilities and try to avoid it. Gerald Sieff noted that the shed and other hardcover was there before 1975, so the City could not require those removals. From his point of view, they are proposing to remove 84 s.f. of an existing shed in the 0-75’ zone plus another 391 s.f. of non-structural hardcover. That calculates out to 5.2 times the area of non-stnictural to structural removals. It would seem more beneficial to remove 468 s.f. of hardcover than to remove 160 s.f. of deck. Jabbour suted that a haidship still needs to exist. In the resolution, it should be staled that if any of the gravel/plastic that is removed reverts back to plastic/gravel, the City has the right to revoke the variance. Mayor Callahan expressed concern over the neighbor using the driveway. He asked Gerhardson for input about this driveway and suggested Gerhardson look at this situation to see what can be done about the neighbor’s driveway access. The neighbor docs not have an easement over the driveway. Goetten did not think a decision about this application should be based on the neighbor’s problems. She also felt there could be additional hardcover removals. The blacktop is an important issue. Gerald Sieff felt there were three options to be considered: 1) Tear down the neighbor’s garage.