My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-27-1993 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
09-27-1993 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2024 11:09:54 AM
Creation date
1/16/2024 11:06:02 AM
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.
/
333
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 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 <br />(#5) /f^l829 DIANNE SIEKF, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL - CONT. <br />Kelley asked who Roy Benson was. Sielf replied that it was her ex-husband. Kelley noted the <br />hardship was no longer prevailing since Mr. Benson with his back problems no longer lives at <br />Ihe house. This makes hardship use of the deck no longer necessary. Kelley felt the deck could <br />be moved back to what it was prior to construction and continue with the removal ol the shed <br />next to the lake. Sieff explained the hardship she was relerring to was the next door neighbor <br />using her driveway, not Bcn:;on with his back problems. <br />Mabusth explained that a 10’ x 8’ deck addition was constructed without application and w'ould <br />have required a variance review because of excesses of hardcover. Kelley reiterated that the <br />hardship no longer exists. Jabbour stated the hardship should be tied to the land, not the <br />applicant. <br />Since the shed was there before the deck addition, Jabbour asked if the City could require the <br />removal of the shed. Mabusth added that the decks were there before the ordinances in 1975. <br />Kelley asked if Jabbour wante I to trade removal of the shed for the deck. Jabbour responded <br />that you have to look at what is the worst of two po.ssibilities and try to avoid it. <br />Gerald Sieff noted that the shed and other hardcover was there before 1975, so the City could <br />not require those removals. 1-rom his point of view, they are proposing to remove 84 s.f. of <br />an existing shed in the 0-75’ zone plus another 391 s f. of non-structural hardcover. That <br />calculates out to 5.2 times the area of non-structural to structural removals. It would seem more <br />benencial to remove 468 s.f. of hardcover than to remove 160 s.f. of deck. <br />Jabbour stated that a hardship still needs to exist. In the resolution, it should be stated that if <br />any of the gravel'plastic that is removed reverts back to plastic/gravel, the City has the right to <br />revoke the variance. <br />Mayor Callahan expressed concern over the neighbor using the driveway, lie asked Gerhardson <br />for input about this driveway and suggested Gerhardson look at this situation to see what can be <br />done about the neighbor ’s driveway access. The neighbor does not have an casement over the <br />driveway. <br />Goetten did not think a decision about this application should be based on the neighbi>r’s <br />problems. She a\so felt there could be additional hardcover removals. The blacktop is an <br />important issue. <br />Gerald Sieff felt there were three options to be considered. <br />1) Tear down the neighKir’s garage
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.