My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-2004 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
11-22-2004 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2012 2:44:55 PM
Creation date
5/31/2012 2:44:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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, November 22, 2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(5.#04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued) • <br />Sansevere stated that he believed the applicant should be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. of living space. <br />Vogstfdni stated that; according to the tax record, the property is referenced at 40,000 s.f.; <br />however, with the lagoon factored in the property diminishes to 14,000 s.f. <br />Once again, McMillan stated that 36% was too much, 25% too small, and suggested the applicant <br />continue to work with staff to analyze what percent is allowable. <br />Gaffron reminded Council that 1,500 s.f. is a limit on a 10,000 s.f. or less lot, not a right. <br />Murphy moved, White seconded, to table Application #04 -3052, Eric Vogstrom, to allow the <br />applicant to continue to work with staff on a revised proposal. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />Sansevere asked what made the applicant, or his contractor, think they could remove all of the <br />established trees on the parcel without permission. <br />Vogstrom stated that he had the tree trimmer in attendance for questions. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that this was not the forum for this discussion and would.be addressed at <br />another time. <br />6. #04 -3055 DR. MARTHA SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH — VARIANCE — • <br />DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 5255 <br />Dr. Spencer stated that until she received the denial resolution in the mail she had no idea that she <br />was being required to remove her dog kennel. She felt this was excessive penalty for this item to <br />have not been missed on surveys, missed by those who visited her property, and missed altogether <br />had she not mentioned it in a previous meeting. She argued that her representative did not have the <br />right to offer to remove it, since they would have no idea whether she intended to purchase another <br />dog in the future. Dr. Spencer stated that the cement kennel has always been there, it was not a <br />secret, nor should it be required to be removed as her hardcover is a mere 8% on her property. <br />White stated that he was willing to allow it. <br />Mayor Peterson acknowledged that it was unfortunate that she was unable to attend the past <br />meeting, when her representative made this submission. She indicated that she felt it was an error <br />overlooked by many parties; therefore, she would allow it to remain. <br />McMillan stated that it seemed to be an oversight that was not precedent setting. <br />Barrett agreed that the Council would be within its rights to allow it or remove it. <br />McMillan moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5255, a resolution <br />denying the applicants variance request, with item #7 removed regarding the removal of the <br />dog kennel. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Sansevere and Murphy opposed. <br />• <br />PAGE 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.