05-29-2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) Barrett stated that might be one basis that the City Council determined that the owner of the back lot had a second lot which was available to them for lake access, and because they were in common ownership, there was no need, which is similar to the application tonight. Waldron stated the lake lot was owned by an individual that did not own the back lot at that time. Flint stated he sees the two lots here as being one parcel. Flint stated he does not understand Mr. Waldron's comment. Waldron stated perhaps he misunderstood the City Attorney's comment, but that it is his understanding of the subject lake lot, at the time the property owner made this application back in 1971, did not own the property that was located off lake. Roesler indicated he did own both lots at that time. Waldron stated he stands corrected then. Barrett stated if that was the case, that could be one basis why the application was denied. Barrett stated it is his understanding that in 1970, when the property owner of the lake lot applied for the variance, at that time it was in common ownership with the other lot. Roesler stated the prior owner owned both lots, with both lots being separate. Barrett stated they were commonly owned since they were owned by the same person. Barrett reiterated that could have been one basis for denial back in 1971. Sansevere commented the Council can only guess that that was the basis for denial back in 1971. Waldron stated at the time the application was made back in 1971, the two lots were not combined. Mayor Peterson inquired how large the building envelope would be on the lake lot. Weinberger stated there are ten foot side setbacks, so they would have 30 feet wide to build in, and a 35 foot setback to the rear of the property. Weinberger stated it would be the standard building envelope that you would see on most of these small lakeshore lots. Sansevere inquired whether the Council had to base their decision tonight on w-hat was done back in 1971, which may have been a mistake. Barrett stated the record before them tonight does not adequately the reasons for the denial and the approval on the other lot. Barrett commented the Council is in a position to try to distinguish them on the facts as we understand them if they wish to, but if they are unable to distinguish them, then there is a strong case to treat like cases alike. Barrett noted Staff has indicated that the same ordinances apply today as they did back in 1971. Barrett stated the big difference is the • E southern lot which was granted the variance came in as a common ownership situation and they • PAGE 10