Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, September 23,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #13-3628 THOMAS POTTER ONBEHALF OFRODNEYAND BARBARA BURWELL, <br /> II00 MILLSTON ROAD, VARIANCES—RESOL UTION TABLED, Continued) <br /> Anderson stated she also concurs and that it is not so much the fact that it is an oversized structure but the <br /> fact that the applicant could find another location,especially with a property this size,which would be <br /> conforming. <br /> Bremer stated if a conforming location is found, she would be fine with that and that she would not <br /> require the applicant to come back before the City Council. Bremer stated the City Council could <br /> approve the second oversized structure but without the setback variance,which would leave it up to the <br /> applicant to decide whether he wants to redesign the structure. <br /> Curtis indicated there would also be a principal structure setback. The applicant could add on to the <br /> house and be at the same 30-foot setback. <br /> McMillan noted a new resolution would need to be drafted. <br /> Mattick stated the resolution would need to approve the oversized structure but deny the variance request <br /> for the side yard setback. The applicant at that point would have the option to construct a structure within <br /> the parameters of that footprint or up to that footprint but they would have to meet all setbacks and other <br /> requirements. <br /> Mattick asked what the time deadline is on this application. <br /> Curtis indicated it is October 19. <br /> Levang asked if Mr. Potter understands what the City Council is requesting. <br /> Potter indicated he does. <br /> Bremer noted it would be approved tonight but without the variance. <br /> Mattick stated he would not have to come back to the City Council if the structure is relocated to a <br /> conforming spot. <br /> Potter asked if they would need to go through a whole new process if they redesign the building. <br /> Mattick stated the Council will need to clarify whether they are talking about approving this exact <br /> configuration or a certain footprint but in a different location. <br /> Potter indicated they will not be able to place the garage anywhere else on the property since the applicant <br /> will not be able to physically access it. <br /> McMillan stated the best solution would be to table the application and redesign the plan to make it <br /> conforming in that location. <br /> Mattick asked how quickly the plans would be put together. <br /> Potter indicated he would need to meet with the homeowner first. <br /> Page 5 of 11 <br />