Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINLJED) <br /> and the Brooks have not. Floyd indicated they have removed old structures and ended longstanding use <br /> of land awarded to the Brooks in 2002,while the Brooks have flagrantly violated the final court order and <br /> have continued trespassing on his private property. <br /> Floyd stated the Brooks' current application is based on illegal trespassing. Floyd stated the Brooks <br /> should have been required to relocate their driveway access in compliance with the court order,which has <br /> not happened. Floyd stated they have no protection from liability from the use of their land by the <br /> Brooks, their workers, and the City's use. Floyd stated they do not want people continuing to use their <br /> property without their permission. <br /> Bremer noted Floyd's letter is part of the record and that it would continue to remain a part of the <br /> application as it proceeds to the City Council. Bremer stated Floyd is also welcome to attend the City <br /> Council meeting. <br /> Floyd stated as far as the application materials,they are totally insufficient, with the submitted survey <br /> being a pseudo survey. Floyd noted the pseudo survey contains a disclaimer and also does not show all <br /> the structures on the Brooks' property. Floyd stated the City requires that an application is to have a real <br /> survey and not contain a disclaimer stating that it does not show everything on the property. <br /> Floyd stated he has had numerous discussions with Gaffron and other staff inembers since 1998 <br /> concerning his property and the Brooks' property. Floyd stated their fence and property is not in the <br /> location depicted by Gaffron on the overhead but is in the location depicted on his survey. Floyd <br /> illustrated the location of his property line and fence. Floyd indicated he is opposed to having Staff <br /> discuss his property line and fence in connection with this application. <br /> Floyd stated he resents the fact that he has to appear tonight while the applicants do not bother to show <br /> up. Floyd stated they have offered the Brooks a reasonable settlement numerous times since 1998. Floyd <br /> stated they have proposed an easement for an easement and that there is nothing that they are asking that <br /> is extraordinary and that there is nothing that he is requesting that the Brooks cannot easily grant. Floyd <br /> stated since the applicant does not care enough to do a swap, the applicant obviously does not care about <br /> the driveway and he should be required to relocate it. <br /> Floyd stated the original structure is not the structure that is there now,with the roof being much higher <br /> and the use being different. Floyd pointed out the shed was grandfathered in as a garage and the variance <br /> to build the new and improved building was based on it being a garage; not as an entertainment pavilion <br /> or a lakeside restroom. Floyd stated the character and the use of this building have been allowed to <br /> expand beyond what a garage typically is. Floyd stated the small garage that used to exist there is no <br /> longer there and that the garage should not be allowed to be converted into living space. Floyd stated the <br /> Brookses are now expanding to a third residence on this site and that this building is not functioning as a <br /> garage. <br /> Floyd pointed out there are a number of nonconforming structures on the property that are not depicted on <br /> the pseudo survey. <br /> PAGE 28 <br />