My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2025 11:42:36 AM
Creation date
12/29/2025 11:29:53 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.
/
383
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1986 <br />#1010 Dl . NE N. 1iALL con' -Trued <br />In response to the Taylors comments, Mr. IlaI1 stated <br />that he did in fact offer to buy some of Mrs. Taylors <br />property but it would not solve his problem a th zoning <br />laws at this time. He also assured that nc da- ,ge would <br />be done to her trees. <br />Chairman Kelley read into the record a letter to the <br />Planning Commission dated March 14, 1986 from Milton & <br />Doreen Seifert of 1856 Shadywood Rd., indicating their <br />objectic ns for the following reasons: 1)overcrowding <br />on Crystal Bay 2isubstandard lot 3)City should remain <br />consistent with past actions 4)encouraae others <br />(setting precedent) to seek variances w' ch .iould be in <br />direct conflict with what the Commissior. .nO people wish <br />to see for the area. <br />There were no other person present from the public <br />regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />Planning Commission member Taylor stated he felt uncom- <br />fortable with aggravating a situation that within a <br />neighborhood already rias a number of substar•dard lots, <br />an area that appears Lo be conjested, and feels it is <br />hard to deal with the concepts of grandfathering when <br />there is no legal basis. He felt it was not an <br />appropriate variance �o approve. <br />CAllahan stated that he aqreed with Taylors comments and <br />staffs recommendation to deny. <br />Rov`gno agreed that he was uncomfortable with this app- <br />lication noting that the material from Mi Hall was <br />persuasive along with Mr. Erics(.--'3 comments. He noted <br />that one thing that troubles him .,rout such applications <br />is that if there had been a snack on a separate lot they <br />would be approving it as a substantial property right. <br />Ile noted staffs memo vs. Mr. :fall's material, it appears <br />th, t either this lot is exar_l- l y like all th? rest or <br />very very different, somethi that should be recon- <br />ciled. In addition, he feels • ..at it ie a small lot and <br />a very difficult situation. <br />Bellows stated that based on Mr. Hall's ma' als <br />submitted she felt that the only hardship was a <br />tinancial one which was not a valid hardship. She <br />questioned the fact that Mr. Hall noted that his present <br />hOUSP is too large but however the proposed house <br />(50'x40' 7-story plus basement) appears to be larger <br />than his prrgent home. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.