My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2005 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
08-22-2005 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 3:51:17 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:56:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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, August 22, 2005 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. • <br />(7. #05 -3129 ASCENT INVESTMENTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF DO UGLAS KLINT, <br />Continued) <br />Sansevere asked whether Klint's hardship supported the variance request in staff's mind. He noted <br />that Council's greatest responsibility is consistency. <br />Gundlach and Gaffron indicated that they felt the home could be built within the setbacks and were <br />not compelled by the applicant's hardship, since no one knows how the ROW public access may <br />need to be used in the future. <br />White stated that, while he sympathized with the applicant's wishes for his design and desire to <br />clean-up the property, Council was in an awkward position. <br />Klint pointed out that hardships are unique to every property and in his view, moving the home <br />closer to the less busy road and away from the high traffic road seemed like a logical hardship to <br />improve the property. He encouraged the Council to consider what was in the best interest of the <br />community, to clean up this parcel and restore the fire lane side yard to its natural state or remodel <br />the existing noncompliant residence. <br />McMillan maintained that, oftentimes, homeowners on either side of fire lanes encroach more and <br />more, while it is the City's responsibility to preserve and retain these ROW'S. <br />White stated that he felt hard pressed to overturn staff's recommendation, since there is adequate • <br />buildable space on the property. <br />Though sympathetic to the applicant's position, Mayor Peterson stated that she concurred with <br />White. <br />Klint stated that the fear of setting a precedent in the future should not blind the Council from <br />making a reasonable decision adopting a good plan for this application. He maintained that while <br />the Council had a fiduciary responsibility to its constituents, staff does not hold the same level of <br />responsibility to the public and makes recommendations based by the book. <br />McMillan asked the applicant whether he wished to table to redesign or move forward with a vote. <br />Klint stated that he could not imagine how he could make the home work for him if he were forced <br />to redesign to fit the buildable area, as he had attempted several designs already to no avail. He <br />indicated that he would likely give up and do something else with the property. <br />Attorney Barrett pointed out that if the applicant were denied his application, he could not reapply <br />for 6 months. <br />Klint asked to proceed. <br />Sansevere moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to direct staff to direct a resolution approving a <br />lot area and lot width variance but denying the side street setback variance for property <br />located at 1345 Rest Point Lane, once the applicant has submitted a revised plan including a • <br />grading and drainage plan for City Engineer review and approval. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />PAGE 4 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.