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\tlINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />l\.'IEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 <br />(#4 -#2088 \Vinfield Stephens -Continued) <br />Callahan asked Goetten what direction she would give to the Planning Commission if the <br />application was sent back to them for review. Goetten said she would ask for reductions <br />in the plan. <br />Kelley said the plan does meet the 15% structural coverage and could be made even <br />larger. It was noted that the project could not become larger without additional <br />variances and the hardcover issue would also be a factor. Mabusth commented that any <br />corrections made would be outside of the 75-250' setback. Kelley asked and was <br />informed that the property is not lakeshore property. <br />Jabbour agreed that the project could be better by changing the setback or starting from <br />scratch but did not feel the issue could be forced. <br />The Council again questioned the vacation. Mabusth said if there is a question to the <br />document, she noted the vacation and lot have not yet been legally combined, and Staff <br />could reconfirm the validity as a result of the combination. <br />Callahan said if the vacation is the issue, then there is no need to send the application <br />back to the Planning Commission. He asked what the Council could ask the Planning <br />Commission to do if the structural coverage meets the 15% allowable. Goetten <br />responded that it has been requested in the past. <br />Vote on motion to refer back to Planning Commission: Ayes 2, Burr, Goetten; Nays 3, <br />Kelley, Callahan, Jabbour. Motion denied. <br />Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3720 per the Planning <br />Commission's recommendation providing Staff is satisfied of the vacation of the alley as <br />presently proposed and is included in the homestead parcel and legally combined. <br />Burr said she had a problem with the hardship for the variance for the size of the <br />structure. <br />Goetten said she feels that issue of the vacation is most important and that there are other <br />options available. <br />Vote: Ayes 3, Kelley, Callahan, Jabbour; Nays 2, Goetten, Hurr. Motion carried. <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.