Laserfiche WebLink
r.-i • <br />F <br />r-- <br />,v'•■ <br />.v ■ <br />k-kx'^rr <br />§>■ <br />•\k <br />«*V <br />.-■. <br />K"- <br />i-c-’ <br />•. <br />HXNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 <br />(#11) PAUL AND MARCIA MIRLO <br />2142 SHADYWOOD ROAD - <br />VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3024 <br />Marda Merlo was present for this application. <br />Moorse advised that this Is an application to hardcover <br />requirements to construct a two story addition. <br />Mabusth explained that the applicants have revised their <br />plan as requested by the Planning Commission. The applicants <br />have submitted twc. proposals, one of which they feel Is not <br />viable because of a severe drop and a tree In the way. She noted <br />that the hardcover from the spillway has been removed from the <br />calculation as requested by Planning Commission. <br />Goetten felt the second option was a more workable solution. <br />Butler asked If there would be room for a truck <br />around with the second proposal. <br />to turn <br />Merlo noted that they would have to use the Joint driveway <br />more and It would bo very tight. <br />Jabbour stated that the applicants have worked very hard to <br />comply with the ordinances. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Peterson, to adopt <br />Resolution #3024, application #1678 for Paul and Marcia Merlo of <br />2142 Shadywood Road, approving hardcover variances to construct a <br />two story addition. Ayes 4, nays 0. <br />(#12) MORATORIUM DISCUSSION <br />Gaffron asked how the Council felt regarding lot line <br />rearrangements, which are considered by code to be a subdivision, <br />in relation to the recent moratorium.And If this type of <br />subdivision Is subject to the moratorium, can a concurrent <br />variance application be filed with the subdivision application. <br />He noted that the moratorium stated that anything that did not <br />have preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption date of the <br />moratorium Is subject to that moratorium.Gaffron asked If the <br />lot sizes created by the lot line rearrangement do not meet code <br />and require variances, are they subject to the moratorium. <br />Jabbour felt that the <br />concurrently. <br />applications could be handled <br />Butler stated that she <br />rearrangement Is not actually <br />create a new lot and both lots <br />prescribed use. If a lot line <br />of those lots being vacant, <br />subdivision as you are creating <br />always felt that a lot line <br />a subdivision because Is does not <br />are currently occupied by their <br />rearrangement Is proposed with one <br />then it would be considered as a <br />a bulIdable lot. <br />8 <br />■w.