Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 21, 1989 <br />ZONING PILE #1366-BUTTERPIELD CONTINUED <br />Line that have accessory structures on them, and one in <br />particular that has a house being constructed. Mr. Butterfield <br />explained that he rarely encountered pedestrians on the Luce Line <br />at any time of day, with the exception of Fall (leaves changing <br />color) and Sundays. <br />CounciImember Nettles questioned whether the crossing of <br />Luce Line Trail occurred by pedestrians or vehicles? Mr. <br />Buttterfield responded that he had crossed with tractors and <br />trucks. Nettles then asked what type of accessory structure was <br />being proposed south of the Luce Line. Mr. Butterfield said his <br />son was proposing a gazebo-type structure. Mr. Butterfield <br />indicated that the setbacks for that portion of Lo"-. 2 was not a <br />concern, as long as an accessory structure would be allowed. <br />CounciImember Peterson asked Mr. Butterfield what his <br />objections to the proposed resolution were. Mr. Butterfield <br />answered that he was concerned about the continued use of the <br />pond and the ability to obtain peat. He said that he would be <br />happy to comply with the recommendations made by the City <br />Engineer. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Council <br />that based upon their action, he had drafted specific language <br />that would pertain to the Engineer's recomme dation. The <br />language would require a drainage easement in Lot 1 with the <br />allowance of drawing wat-jr from the pond on the northerly <br />property and a conservation and flowage easement that would <br />reference a conditional use permit for the wetlands on the <br />southerly property. Mr. Butterfield would then be requir'^d to <br />apply for a conditional use permit. <br />Counci Imember P^^terson asked whether Mr. Butterfield was <br />successful in obtaining the conditional use permit applied for in <br />1975. Bernhardson replied that he was directed to do that in <br />1975 and that staff was recommending that Mr. Butterfield come <br />forth at this time with that application, since the previous <br />approval had been for temporary use only. <br />CounciImember Callahan stated that it was his opinion, the <br />division and use of this property was unique. He was concerned <br />about the extremely long and narrow outlot and felt that there <br />would be a future request for a lot combination of the property <br />south of the Luce Line. He believed that the recommendation of <br />the Planning Commission ought to be followed. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that a <br />"Special Lot Combination" would be filed in the chain of title <br />that would require Lot 2 and Outlot A to remain together. <br />However, it would not prevent a request for rezoning. Callahan <br />did not believe that would be a permanent solution to a possible <br />problem. Callahan reiterated his desire to follow the Planning <br />Commission's recommendation to allow no accessory structures <br />south of the Luce Line.