My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-08-2006 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
05-08-2006 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:30:26 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 4:30:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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, May 8, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN ,1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) <br />White withdrew his motion. <br />Coward pointed out that a precedent for lot width had been set within the neighborhood and this <br />house does not fit it as it is far more massive. <br />Murphy stated that it saddened him to see how the proposed mass of the home nearly almost <br />shamed his neighbors in size. <br />Larson stated that it appeared to him that the only hardship the applicant faced had been created by <br />the size of the home that he proposed to put on the lot. He failed to see any hardship whatsoever. <br />Gaffron pointed out that, in a zone that requires 200' widths, any proposed construction would <br />require a variance. In fact, Gaffron stated that all of the homes within Fox Hill would require a <br />width variance to be rebuilt. <br />Moorse indicated that the applicant had met the side setback requirements. <br />Broitzman maintained that the City has a code which addresses the size of the footprint, on a less <br />than 2 acre lot, where a certain percent is allowed for the footprint or is limited by the structural <br />coverage which he stated they are in compliance with. <br />Sansevere asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the massing. <br />Broitzman stated that he was not. <br />Murphy moved, White seconded, to accept the resolution, moving the driveway to the <br />original location off of County Road 15 and directing staff to compile findings of fact to <br />support the location. <br />Broitzman stated that last fall he was told by the Council to put the driveway out back and now, <br />after 8 months, he would prefer it that way. <br />White pointed out that until he could be supplied with a final plan for either location, he could not <br />be in a position to decide which he would support. He believed that now that he had seen a <br />proposal and all that it entailed, he preferred the driveway off the front. <br />Brokl stated that the Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution and findings of fact to <br />support the driveway off the front of the property. <br />Morris Nelson commented that the water runoff from the front of the yards typically ends up in his <br />yard where there is a culvert and offers a better solution. <br />Broitzman asked the City Attorney if the Council could ask him to rework his efforts after having <br />asked hint to put the driveway in the back previously. <br />PAGE 8 of 17 <br />• <br />11 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.