My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-29-1984 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1984
>
10-29-1984 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2025 10:10:52 AM
Creation date
10/30/2025 10:01:22 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
362
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE &::;GULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984. PAGE 16 <br />t#820 Fisk (cont) Councilmembei: Grabek stated that if the City is going to <br />look at the precedent issue that way and look into the <br />future, then the City has to pay attention to the <br />precedents that have already been set. Grabek stated <br />that the Council should look at all the important <br />factors of the individual lot and not worry about <br />setting a precedence. <br />Councilmember Hammerel stated that in the findings for. <br />denial, the City should not include that the neighbors <br />wanted to purchase the pcop.:rty and have made an offer.. <br />Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Adams seconded, to <br />request staff to draft a resolution of denial for the <br />Lonie Fisk variance application based on the following <br />fiwlinys: <br />1. The property can be put to a reasonable allowed <br />use, it can be combined with the adjacent <br />property, and there is an outstanding offer to <br />purchase by the adjacent property owner. <br />2. The intent of the application is contrary to the <br />letter and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br />3. The development and/or granting of the variance <br />wo>111i set: an adverse prece ent in the City. <br />4. The applicant/purch.3ser should have had <br />kno.41edge of the zoning code require,nent-; prior to <br />purchase. Any hirc3soip seems to be self imposed. <br />5. This is tax focfeit property. <br />6. One-half .sewer unit_ was charged indicating <br />question on the part of someone that the lot is <br />substandard. <br />7. No lateral sewer assessment was levied against <br />this property thereby again raising the question <br />of the substandard status of the property. <br />8. The property falls short of the zoning standard to <br />an extent too great to enable justification of <br />granting of the variances requested. <br />9. The property does not conform to the current <br />development pattern of the neighborhood. <br />Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (1). Councilmember Grabek <br />voted niy for reasons noted above. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.