11-10-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10, 1997 ( #3 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) • Goetten asked what the time lime is to accomplish solving this issue. Barrett said since the applicant's attorney suggested litigation, it can be discussed during the executive session following the public meeting. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to continue the application to the Executive Session. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Barrett asked that the record reflect that the applicant and attorney left the meeting before the Council was able to complete the discussion, and the discussion continued for several minutes after the applicant and attorney left the meeting. ( #4) #2283 GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE - RENEWAL VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 39997-A The applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for a renewal of a lapsed variance from 1987 regarding two lots. The applicants reside on Lot 2 and would like Lot 1 to be deemed buildable. Lot area and lot width variances are required for Lot 1. The approval would also include a hardcover variance of 3.6% to allow 28.6% hardcover to remain on Lot 2 where 25% is allowed. Van Zomeren displayed a topographical map and located the building pad for Lot 1. She reported that the issue at the Planning Commission was the sewer assessment that had been paid by the applicant for Lot 1. Lot 1 is .52 areas with .38 contiguous; 5,800 s.f. is not contiguous. The Planning Commission with a 5:1 vote approved variances for lot area and width. Mr. Birnbaum had no additional comments to make at this time. Jabbour asked Barrett if the decision can be reversed when a lot is assessed a sewer unit denoting it a buildable lot. Barrett said, as a general rule, this allows a non - conforming lot to be buildable, but the underlying decision making sewer available tends to confirm a decision that the lot is buildable; though it might be found that the lot is unbuildable and to set the record straight, the fee could be returned. Barrett said this was not very practical, however. Moorse cited an example with tax forfeit parcels that are non - conforming. If these parcels are returned to the County, the City has informed the County that the lot must be combined with adjoining lot and assessment is waived. Moorse said he did not know if this relates to this particular application. 0