My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-12-1996 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
02-12-1996 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:09:56 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:09:56 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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 19% <br />• ( 411 - 92102 Howard and Elizabeth McMillan - Continued) <br />Kelley asked if the variance pertained to Ordinance Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, <br />prohibiting excavation within 25' of wetlands. Mabusth said it was to excavate within the <br />wetland and included the creation of the shoreline. Kelley asked what the hardships were <br />for such a variance. Howard McMillan said the retaining walls were failing. He added <br />that in order to get enough fill to repair the walls, it would cause destruction of the <br />asphalt and the steep grade. McMillan said the hardships, then, were access and fill. <br />Kelley asked the size of the area and the amount of spoils, which are 1.2 acres and 270 <br />cubic yards, respectively. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />( #12) PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - OVERSIZE ACCESSORY <br />STRUCTURES (SECTION 10.03 SUBD. 9C) <br />Gaffron reported that the code concerning oversized accessory structure was being <br />considered for amendment. The current table is based on the individual size of the <br />oversized structure and its corresponding property size. The Planning Commission <br />reviewed the proposed amendment, and in light of the few number of variance requests <br />affected by the limit of the table, decided that they would prefer to retain control by <br />requiring a variance and recommended no change be made to the present code. Gaf&on <br />• asked Council to either agree with this recommendation or to direct the Staff to go <br />forward with the amendment. <br />n <br />U <br />Hurr said it was a hardship for a resident with 30 acres to need to go through the <br />variance application process as that of a 9 acre parcel. She believes setbacks are an issue. <br />Hurr said she would prefer to see a sliding scale and would support an extended table. <br />Kelley said he would prefer the code remain as it exists noting that the majority of 10 <br />acre and over parcels with eventually be subdivided. ' <br />Goetten said she agreed with Kelley considering the small amount of parcels that would <br />be affected. She did not believe it was necessary to legislate for all but would like review <br />of larger parcels which could have an impact. <br />Callahan directed Gaffron that the Council were 3 (Callahan, Kelley, and Goetten) to <br />(Hurr) in maintaining the current code. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.