My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-13-1993 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
09-13-1993 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2024 2:00:56 PM
Creation date
1/12/2024 1:57:43 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.
/
313
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 <br />(#5) #1829 DIANNE SIEFF, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL - CONT. <br />2) <br />3) <br />Continue to use the current driveway. <br />Remove the current driveway and build another driveway between the SiefFs and <br />the neighbor’s driveway on the lower part. <br />Sicff noted that many of the problems with the Planning Commission were over what the <br />definitions of non-structural hardcover are, i.e. blacktop vs. plastic underliner for rose beds vs. <br />gravel. <br />Callahan stoted that the object is not to trade hardcover for equal amounts of hardcover but to <br />reduce hardcover to the allowed levels. Sieff replied they were not proposing an equal exchange <br />but 478 s.f. of removals for 160 s.f. hardcover. Jabbour added the City was trying to get as <br />close to 25% as possible. <br />Kelley asked to see what the applicant could propose if the driveway were disallowed to the <br />south. This would reduce a substantial amount of hardcover if the lower portion of the driveway <br />were removed. He would like to see figures as to how close to 25% these removals could <br />obuin. If only 2*3% were gained, it wouldn’t be effective. Mabusth added that these questions <br />were asked of the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant noted that the <br />doors on the garage were for maintenance vehicles. To access the garage from the other side, <br />vehicles would have to be moved out of the garage to get to the back. Sieff noted the area being <br />discussed is about 4’ x 6’. TIk. applicant felt nothing could be removed in the 75-250’ zone <br />because of access to the doors. Kelley still wants to see a proposal for removals because a <br />paved area may not be necessary for using these doors. Goetten added the City is looking for <br />help from the Sieffs in more elimination of hardcover since they are way over the toul allowed <br />annount. <br />Gerald Sieff expressed his liustration with looking for more removals. They have been at three <br />meetings and have not been able to find a better solution. They have lived on the lake for 17-18 <br />years and are also very concerned about the environment. They are offering to give up 478 s.f. <br />of hardcover. <br />Jabbour agreed with Kelley that it would be difficult to get additional removals in the 75-250’ <br />zone. This leaves the City with the option of accepting the proposed removals which may be <br />more favorable to the City than asking for the removal of the 160 s.f. deck. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to grant the after-the-fact variance for <br />the deck conditioned upon removal of the shed by the lake and all other proposed hardcover <br />removals as presented in the application and discussion with the City Attorney about including <br />a stipulation that if any of the non-structural hardcover removals reappear, the applicam would <br />be requited to reappear before the Council and the deck would have to be removed. Ayes 3, <br />navs 1 • Goetten was opposed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.