My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-1985 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1985
>
07-15-1985 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 1:19:54 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 1:18:23 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
ir <br />MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 21 <br />«943 JOHN & SUSAN PURDY <br />#944 JAMES LEAR <br />3127 CASCO CIRCLE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />11:05 - 11:20 PM <br />Chairman Kelley reported that some additional <br />building is being allowed within the 0-75* zone. <br />The hardship being the lake on both sides of the <br />property, the configuation of the land and the <br />steep slopes. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the 1 <br />year expiration date for the variance. Also, this <br />application will be taken to the July 22nd Council <br />meeting to speed up the process. <br />Chairman Kelly declared the expiration date still <br />is one year. The applicants, after one year, may <br />come and reapply for the variance. <br />Goetten stated that the applicants are to be put on <br />notice that they are at the maximum allowed <br />hardcover on their property. <br />Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). <br />James Lear was present. Robert A. Swanson, the <br />landscaper, was also present. Zoning Administrator <br />Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the <br />affidavit of publication. No one was present from <br />the public for this application. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to the <br />applicant that the proposed setback from the road <br />to the fence is actually 2' from the road right-of- <br />way, not 15 ’ as the applicant had thought. The <br />applicant has installed a 6 foot high privacy fence <br />in the street yard of his lakeshore home. The <br />fence has been installed with a permanent <br />foundation and appears to function as an integral <br />part of the lakescaping for the street yard. The <br />fence actually creates no hazards - the trees that <br />were there before wore much more hazardous. <br />Lear stated that the fence was basically put there <br />for landscaping reasons. The fence is only 40* <br />wide instead of 48* wide. It covers less than half <br />of the frontage of the property. <br />Chairman Kelley stated that he found it very diffi <br />cult to leave the fence in the present location <br />because of the height of the fence, the neighbor <br />hood doesn't have a lot of fencing, and how far it <br />is back from the street. The fence should be in
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.