Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE • <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 13,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�, 80 CREEK RIDGE <br /> PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 622 7, Contin ued) <br /> Bremer indicated it is 1,700 square feet. <br /> McMillan noted there appears to be quite a bit of bend in this line, and asked if the sewer line has been <br /> televised. <br /> Struve indicated Scott Oberainger was on site and the line was repaired to the City's satisfaction but the <br /> line was not televised. The line was cleaned and repaired at that time. <br /> McMillan asked what the possible deviation in the line is. <br /> Struve stated any pipe material will allow for some deflection at each joint which can range up to about <br /> three degrees. Over a long period of time, it is not uncommon for there to be swoops in the pipe. Struve <br /> stated it is fairly common to see pipes that wander slightly. When Scott was on site,the pipe was found <br /> to be within ten feet, and normally the City would want a 10-foot separation in the event the pipe would <br /> ever have to be dug up. <br /> McMillan asked if Staff could have brought this before the Council in January. <br /> Gaffron indicated they could have. Gaffron stated in the future Staff will bring similar situations to the <br /> Council's attention immediately. <br /> Mattick stated the City's process for a variance is clear and that there is no way to circumvent that. In <br /> some minor situations, Staff can handle some situations administratively, and that in his opinion Staff was <br /> following the correct procedure by requiring the applicant to apply for an after-the-fact variance. <br /> Printup asked what would happen if they denied the after-the-fact variance. <br /> Mattick stated if it is denied, it is denied,but pointed out that this was not an ideal situation and some <br /> decisions had to be made in the field. It was Staff's opinion that they would support the after-the-fact <br /> variance once it came before the City Council. <br /> Gaffron stated another option could be a lot line rearrangement but that would have an impact on the <br /> adjoining property. Gaffron stated if the intent is to keep the 60-foot separation, if a variance is requested <br /> for the adjacent lot that could be an opportunity for the Council to consider what options they have for <br /> maintaining the 60-foot setback. <br /> Bremer noted this lot is a lot of record and that they have a legal right to construct on the lot. <br /> Anderson indicated she is not comfortable with making the adjacent property make up for the shortfall on <br /> this lot. <br /> Mattick indicated the reason for relocating the house was because it was too close to a utility line and that <br /> the question comes down to whether the house should be further away from the utility line. <br /> Page 6 of 26 <br />