01-26-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1998 • PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Casey, 255 Landmark Drive, Orono, reported that he lives on Stubbs Bay. Casey is installing rip rap on his shoreline and is in the process of adding a beach with the approval of the Watershed District. He said he learned that he needed a conditional use permit in order to move 2 cubic yards of dirt at his lakeshore. The contractors have been hired, and the need to go through the CUP process will affect the time frame. He asked for approval now to move the dirt and obtain an after - the -fact CUP. Jabbour informed Casey that it is not within the Council's power to grant approval. Barrett confirmed that the CUP would be required due to the resulting alteration of the Lakeshore. Jabbour asked if Staff could review items such as this and grant administrative approval. Gaffron said he would submit a memo regarding such code changes. Kelley noted that no permits are required for riprapping; yet, he finds it hard to believe that during this process the same amount of dirt is not moved. He felt that since rip rap permits are not required, the Council should be able to grant such approval as that being requested. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • ( #3) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Conley Brooks was present. Gaffron reported that Mr. Brooks is requesting reconsideration of a variance approval given October 13 for a storage garage. The property is located on West Ferndale Road. The 12'x 15' garage received approval for location within the front street yard, but was limited to 12'x 15'. The residence is located further to the east. The garage would meet the 26' wetland setback and be located T from the street. The applicant originally proposed a 24'x24' garage, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of a 18'x24' garage. The applicant is asking approval of a 16'x22' garage. A diagram of the structure was provided. Gaffron said the applicant believes a 12'x15' structure is too small to be functional. He indicated it would require a 4 /5th vote in order for reconsideration of the application. Barrett said the Council can discuss the merits of the request and then take action or refer the application back to the Planning Commission. Jabbour noted that a motion from a Council member, who voted with the majority on the initial action, is required to open the application for reconsideration. 3