My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-2003 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
07-28-2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2012 10:32:56 AM
Creation date
5/16/2012 10:28:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 28, 2003 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. . <br />(RICHARD S. BROWN, 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) <br />1. Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or <br />paved surfaces shall be removed. <br />2. Retaining walls shall be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, <br />and any walls to remain within 5' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether <br />they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not <br />necessary to support the topography of the site shall be removed. <br />3. All landscape beds lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. <br />The minority opinion of the Planning Commission was that the removals did not reach the 35% <br />limit established by code and they failed to see a hardship supporting the variances. <br />Gaffron explained that staff believed the applicant had made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover <br />to 39.7 %. He indicated that if the Council concludes that the unique circumstances regarding the <br />history of this property could be deemed as a hardship, then approval of the after - the -fact variances <br />per the revised removal plan would be in order. <br />Mr. Brown stood for questions, commenting that he was disappointed with the process this <br />application had taken, although he felt that Gaffron had been fair and reasonable throughout. <br />With regard to the history of this property, Murphy stated that the City had always had a difficult <br />time with the previous owner, which was no reflection on Mr. Brown. He believed the City had • <br />ample opportunity to inspect the work in progress and that it was unfortunate that neighbors' calls <br />that things were out of control were not followed up on. He was bothered by the fact that the <br />hardcover was way over after construction was complete, that the owner/builder had taken the City <br />for `a ride', and that the new owner was left holding the bag. <br />Brown questioned that, despite the neighbor's concern, when he called one month prior to closing <br />on the property, the City did not express concern and told him that electric inspections etc. were all <br />that remained. He felt the City had plenty of opportunity to catch this before it got to the point it <br />was at when he purchased it. <br />White stated that he believed Brown had gone to great lengths to reduce the hardcover by 20 %, and <br />agreed that the City did have chances to correct this problem earlier. He indicated that the Planning <br />Commission spent much time debating the application and that he agreed with the <br />recommendation. <br />Mayor Peterson, too, saw the Planning Commission discussion and agreed that what the applicant <br />had done was fair. Having driven past the home during construction, she questioned why it was <br />never checked over a year period. She complimented the applicant for making the best of a bad <br />situation. <br />Sansevere believed approving the application would not set any precedent, based on the history and <br />unique set of circumstances surrounding the property which justified the hardship. <br />• <br />PAGE 6 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.