My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5468
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 5400 - 5499 (November 28, 2005 - August 28, 2006)
>
Resolution 5468
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2018 1:06:17 PM
Creation date
11/5/2015 12:38:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, May 8, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #OS-3136 TROYBRDI7'ZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Coiitinued) <br /> White withdrew his motion. <br /> Coward pointed out that a precedent for lot width had been set within the neighborhood and this <br /> house does not fit it as it is far more massive. <br /> Murphy stated that it saddened him to see how the proposed mass of the home nearly almost <br /> shamed his neighbors in size. <br /> Larson stated that it appeared to him that the only hardshi�the applicant faced had been created by <br /> the size of the home that he proposed to put on the lot. He failed to see any hardship whatsoever. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that, in a zone that requires 200' widths, any proposed construction would <br /> require a variance. In fact, Gaffron stated that all of the homes within Fox Hill would require a <br /> width variance to be rebuilt. <br /> Moorse indicated that the applicant had met the side setback requirements. <br /> Broitzman maintained that the City has a code which addresses the size of the footprint, on a less <br /> than 2 acre lot, where a certain percent is allowed for the footprint or is limited by the structural <br /> coverage which he stated they are in compliance with. <br /> Sansevere asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the massing. <br /> Broitzman stated that he was not. <br /> Murphy moved,White seconded,to accept the resolution, moving the driveway to the <br /> original location off of County Road 15 and directing staff to compile findings of fact to <br /> support the location. <br /> Broitzman stated that last fall he was told by the Council to put the driveway out back and now, <br /> after 8 months, he would prefer it that way. <br /> White pointed out that until he could be supplied with a �nal plan for either location, he could not <br /> be in a position to decide which he would support. He believed that now that he had seen a <br /> proposal and all that it entailed,he preferred the driveway off the front. <br /> Brokl stated that the Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution and findings of fact to <br /> support the driveway off the front of the property. <br /> Morris Nelson commented that the water runoff from the front of the yards typically ends up in his <br /> yard where there is a culvert and offers a better solution. <br /> Broitzman asked the City Attorney if the Council could ask him to rework his efforts after having <br /> asked him to put the driveway in the back previously. <br /> PAGE 8 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.