Laserfiche WebLink
. , : . <br /> J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br /> MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10, 1997 <br /> (#3 -#2279/#2280 Mazc and Tracy Whitehead-Continued) <br /> Goetten asked�vhat the time lime is to accomplish solvina this issue. <br /> Barrett said since the applicant's attomey suggested litigation,it can be discussed during <br /> the executive ses:sion following the.public meeting. . . � <br /> Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded,to continue the application to the Executive Session. <br /> � Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> � Barrett asked that the record reflect that the applicant and attomey left the meeting <br /> before the Council was able to complete the discussion, and the discussion continued for <br /> several minutes after the applicant and attomey left the meeting. <br /> � (#=1)#2283 GARY AND BONIVIE BIRNBAUI�I,2695 KELLY AVENUE- <br /> REYEWAL VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO.39997-A � <br /> � The applicants were present. � � <br /> Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for a renewal of a lapsed variance <br /> from 1987 regarding two lots. The applicants reside on Lot 2 and would like Lot 1 to be <br /> deemed buildable. Lot azea and lot width variances aze required for Lot 1. The approval <br /> would also include a hardcover variance of 3.6%to allow 28.6%hardcover to remain on <br /> • Lot 2�vhere 25%is allowed. � <br /> Van Zomeren displayed a topographical map and located the building pad for Lot 1. She <br /> reported that the issue at the Planning Commission was the sewer assessment that had <br /> been paid by the applicant for Lot 1. Lot I is .52 azeas with.38 contiguous; 5,800 s.f. is <br /> not contiguous. The Planning Commission with a 5:1 vote approved variances for lot <br /> azea and width. <br /> Mr. Birnbaum had no additional comments to make at this time. <br /> Jabbour asked Barrett if the decision can be reversed when a lot is assessed a sewer unit <br /> denotin?it a buildable lot. Barrett said, as a general rule,this allows a non-conforming :� . <br /> lot to be buildable,but the underlying decision nzakuig sewer available tends to confimi � <br /> a decision that the lot is buildable; though it might be found that the lot is unbuildable <br /> and to set the record straight, the fee could be retumed. Barrett said this was not very ' <br /> practical,ho�vever. <br /> Moorse cited an example with ta.Y forfeit parcels that aze non-conforming. If these <br /> pazcels are retumed to the County,the City has informed the County that the lot must be <br /> combined with adjoinin;lot and assessment is waived. Moorse said he did not know if <br /> this relates to this particular application. <br /> 8 _ <br />