Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monda, July 10, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #06 -06 -3196 McNAUGHTON/HAMM, <br />Sansevere inquired how many of the neighl <br />granting of this variance would be setting a <br />Gaffron stated this type of variance approval is <br />neighborhood. <br />lots consist of two acres or more and whether the <br />lent within the City. <br />unusual, especially given the character of the <br />Sansevere commented there appears to be a lot of distrust among the neighbors regarding this application. <br />Sansevere inquired when the original lot line agreement was entered into, noting that a different date is <br />listed in Nis. Goetten's letter than what is contained in Staff's report. <br />Gaffron stated there was one special agreement that was entered into, with the agreement later being <br />amended. I <br />Sansevere inquired why Mrs. Goetten is opposed to this lot line rearrangement <br />Mrs. Goetten stated the reason she is opposing this is based on principal. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the applicant ever promised the Goettens that he would not pursue this type <br />of application. <br />Mrs. Goetten stated the principal regards the city's intention with their zoning. <br />Korstad pointed out that circumstances have changed since the original lot line agreement was approved <br />in that Lot 1 is now served or has available to it sewer that did not exist previously. Korstad stated when <br />the agreement was originally entered into, one lot was going to be sewered and one lot was not going to <br />be sewered. Korstad stated the availability of sewer gives a good basis for the change and it is not <br />inconsistent with City rules. <br />Sansevere commented he does not see a basis for not approving this application even though it changes <br />the action of a prior council. <br />Peterson noted she was the only dissenting vote on the Council regarding this special agreement. <br />Gaffron stated the issue is the granting of a new lot line rearrangement to create a new lot that is less than <br />the City's standard. i <br />Peterson commented the dragonfly strip of land is classified as a buildable lot regardless of any action <br />taken by the city. <br />Gaffron stated this lot has been deemed buildable by the City and has been taxed as a buildable lakeshore <br />lot all along. I <br />AGE 5 <br />