My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-25-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-25-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2012 3:55:44 PM
Creation date
9/27/2012 3:55:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25,1997 <br />• ( #12 - Variance for David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) <br />Jabbour asked Counsel if the resolution allows the applicant to continue as he is doing <br />and remain in compliance. Barrett said the Council needs to determine whether the <br />premise of the resolution, which is allowing additional structure to the existing residence, <br />is occurring. He noted that if it is determined to be new construction, a lot area variance <br />would also be required in addition to the variances approved. <br />Kelley noted the difficult issues at hand and differing viewpoints. <br />Jabbour said the discussion is not to review the application but to determine whether the <br />approved application is being diverted from. <br />Kelley said he believes it has changed. <br />Peterson said she does not believe that was Rahn!s intention. <br />Rahn noted that to a certain extent, the City required the engineering that occurred. He <br />sees the only issue as being the two courses of block added. <br />Kelley stated that this brings up the issue that engineering should occur prior to approval <br />of an application. If the facts had been known prior to the approval, he questioned <br />• whether the decision would have been different. Kelley said these facts should have been <br />known. <br />C7 <br />Vang said he would like to correct the order of events. According to the resolution, the <br />Council directed an inspection of the foundation. Staff required the engineer to review <br />the foundation and found it to be structurally sound but not meeting the 42" depth. A <br />plan was developed to provide additional underpinning. <br />Kelley said that issue should have been discussed before the Planning Commission and <br />Council review and may have changed the judgments made. <br />Jabbour said he feels the process should be done in the building permit process as it <br />creates an added burden on the property owner. He noted surveying is expensive and <br />with the engineering, the applicant could pay a large sum and then receive a denial. He <br />feels conditions should be placed on the approval in terms of what checkpoints need to be <br />met. <br />Kelley said the issue is what occurs when these problems are found during the project <br />that Staff says is different from that approved by Council resulting in the Council <br />becoming caught inbetween. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.