My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Bayside Road
>
3770 Bayside Road - 05-117-23-24-0121
>
Land Use
>
95-2088, VAR
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2025 9:27:16 AM
Creation date
10/16/2025 9:25:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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
l\'IINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />:MEETING HELD ON l\.1A Y 13, 1996 <br />(#4 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) <br />Jabbour said he saw the project as a rebuild and preferred that the original house be tom <br />down and the new home placed farther away from the road. He then noted the review <br />done by the Planning Commission and the lot being buildable with its sewer unit. Jabbour <br />said the property owner is entitled to a house, and even though it is ambitious, it has been <br />reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Jabbour said he <br />would prefer the setbacks be changed from 3' to 10' and 40' from the roadway. He <br />continued that he is concerned with granting a 0' setback, but if the Staff is comfortable <br />that the vacation is legal and there is a 15' setback, he would approve it. <br />Callahan and Goetten both expressed concern over the setback. Goetten preferred that <br />the house be moved forward. Goetten said she would like to see improvements to the <br />plan. She noted the right of the owner to build on the property but noted the size of the <br />lot. <br />Jabbour asked Stephens if there was value in the existing building or if he was attempting <br />to accommodate the City's requirement of using the existing foundation. Stephens said <br />he never looked at any other option and believes the house would sit best as proposed. <br />Kelley noted the mature oak trees on the property. Stephens said two would be <br />eliminated but 6 would remain. Maple trees are also located on the property. <br />Goetten moved, to refer the application back to the Planning Commission. Jabbour <br />informed the applicant that if the application was denied, he would not be able to present <br />another application for six months. <br />Stephens said he began the process in November. He said it was his understanding that if <br />the foundation was sound and utilized, the plans could be accepted. Stephens said it was <br />also his understanding from Mabusth and the Planning Commission that he was allowed <br />15% of the total acreage for structural coverage. The proposed structural coverage is <br />14.3%. Stephens said he was told that he would need to vacate the alley, which he has <br />done, and to come to an agreement with the homeowners of Landmark Drive, which he <br />has also completed. Stephens said the other neighbor to the north is satisfied with the <br />plans. Stephens said he has been before the Planning Commission three times and is <br />an.xious to move forward. <br />Goetten said she is still concerned with the size of the structure for the small lot. <br />Callahan seconded the motion previously made by Goetten. <br />(Hurr arrived at this time.) <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.