My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-13-1984 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1984
>
11-13-1984 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2025 1:18:35 PM
Creation date
10/30/2025 1:12:01 PM
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.
/
232
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 uF '1'Hh; REGCI,A' ')RONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984. PAGE <br />#820 LONIE eLSK Ad.ninistraLor Mil)usth showed the Council some pictures <br />with an exstirig house on the subject lot. <br />Garth Coller stated that in the Planning Commission <br />memo, the buildability of this lot will reduce the <br />danger of fire which is always the case with a vacant <br />l.ut. Coller stated that there is no other use for the <br />lot than residential. Cofer stated that the City has <br />granted in the past many variances in excess of the <br />amount granted here. Coller stated that the City has <br />consistently granted variances and n very rare <br />occasio-is denied variances. --oiler stated only three <br />variances have been denied since 1977 and are easily <br />Aist•inguishable. C.oller stated that the first <br />variance that was Denied was rural property. Coller <br />stated that Council's own City staff has stated that <br />rural property is very distinct issue from the Fisk lot <br />and is much easier to deny a variance in rural property. <br />Coller stated that Home Builders was a conceptual <br />denial and in this case there were problems wit}; the <br />shape of the lut, lakeshore setback problem, and an <br />unbuildable building envelope ani would need <br />additional setback variances. Coiler stated that <br />that variance is beyond a lot area and lot width <br />variance. Coiler stated that the third var'ince that <br />was denied was reflected as a non -buildable lot, had no <br />sewer unit assessed, unbuildable envelope, and <br />lakeshore setback problems. Coiler referred to <br />Zoning Administrator Mabustii's denial list as follows: <br />1. "Restricted 'building envelope." C011er stated <br />that this doesn't apply in this case. <br />2. "Property never assessed for sewer." Coller <br />stated that this is not the case here. <br />3. "Stubs never provided." Coiler stated that stubs <br />are provided. <br />4. "AQsessed market value suggests unbuildable lot." <br />Coiler stated that is not a problem here. <br />S. "hand locked." Coller stated not a proble:r. <br />h. "Corner lot." Coller st,ited not a problem; 1, <br />doesn't even need setback variances. <br />7. "Shape of lot." Coiler stated not a proble.n. <br />8. "Topography that would inhibit construction or <br />safe access to site." Coller stated that. is not a <br />problem and that he has expert testimony regarding <br />the traffic. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.