11-14-2005 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 14, 2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. • * #4. #05 -3157 MARTHA T. MASON ON BEHALF OF SARA MOOS, 2160 WEBBER HILLS ROAD - VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 5398 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5398, a Resolution granting front yard setback variances for the property located at 2160 Webber Hills. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. * #5. #05 -3160 JUDSON M. DAYTON, 825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH — LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT — RESOLUTION NO. 5399 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5399, a Resolution approving a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement and creation of an ingress /egress easement for properties located at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #6. GATE HEIGHT APPEAL CONTINUATION Paul Zisla, Attorney -at -Law, and Jim Anthony, Representative of Simply Automation, appeared on behalf • of the Applicant. Murphy noted a hearing has been scheduled for November 21St in front of the Planning Commission. Gundlach stated there is a zoning amendment hearing scheduled for November 21St on the new ordinance. Barrett stated in his opinion the appeal and the zoning ordinance amendment are two separate items. Barrett stated to his understanding the property owner had proceeded to construct the monuments and had apparently bought the gates on a special order. Barrett stated he had misunderstood that initially and that it was his understanding that the applicant had approached the City to inquire about what their statutes allowed. Barrett stated this is a different situation in his view since the landowner has proceeded in what is probably a pretty reasonable interpretation of the code. Barrett stated he requested Attorney Ziska to write a letter to the Council laying out the facts. Barrett encouraged the Council to test the facts asserted, and if the Council is satisfied that those facts are true, the n it would be reasonable to say that the City did not have a direct reference to gate height in our ordinances at the time the application was submitted. Barrett stated if the Council finds that the City did not have a direct reference in their ordinance referring to height of gates, then the new ordinance would apply to future applications and not to this homeowner. Murphy stated it was his understanding that the reason the Council agreed not to pursue this application was the fact that the City had a discussion pending about gate heights. • Page 8