My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-24-1992 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
08-24-1992 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2024 3:01:59 PM
Creation date
4/9/2024 2:58:16 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.
/
385
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 MEETINGHELD AUGUST 10, 1992 <br />1 <br />.:-k \ <br />CONSENT AGENDA - CONT.Motions for all I tarns adoptad by consent agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numerical order.(•2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was not acted on. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Bill Ringer, 3282 North Shore Drive, explained he has rented the <br />property for many years, and now the ONR has purchased the property <br />and he has received an eviction notice. He asked for the Council's <br />help in fighting against the installation of the boat launch in <br />this area. <br />Jabbour explained that the City is working hard with the DNR to <br />prevent the boat launch, but added the City does not really have <br />the power to prevent the launch. He understood that the ONR was not <br />ready to continue with their plans for the launch. <br />Moorse suggested that perhaps the ONR has decided to discontinue <br />the rental of the property, but with no future plans for the <br />property. He said he would contact the ONR to find out the status <br />of their plans and report back to Mr. Ringer. <br />(#3) #1746 THOMAS A MARGARET LOWE, <br />2630 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - VARIANCE <br />Mr. Lowe was present. <br />Mebusth explained that the applicants propose a 21x26* addition in <br />the 0~76* zone to their existing residence. She noted that in an <br />attempt to minimize the impact, the applicants propose the removal <br />of 740 s.f. of non-structural hardcover in the 0-75* area, and also <br />the relocation of a shed at 176 s.f. from the 0-75* zone to the 75- <br />250' zone. The Planning Commission was asked to consider reductions <br />in the 75-250* area to help minimize the impact of the addition. <br />She referred to a previous application where the majority of the <br />home was located in the 0-75* zone and approval was granted for an <br />addition in the 0-75* zone. <br />Goetten stated that each application should be reviewed on Its own <br />merits. <br />Habusth advised that the applicant had asked to have this specific <br />request considered by Council. <br />Habusth noted the existing residence does not lend itself to <br />vertical expansion. <br />Jt,-! <br />m <br />•5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.