My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-18-1991 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1991
>
11-18-1991 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 2:04:50 PM
Creation date
12/14/2022 1:53:51 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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
I V. <br />fr’ <br />i <br />Zoning File #1698 <br />November 12, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />List o£ Bidiibits - <br />A - Application <br />B *■ Applicant's Addendum <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />H <br />I <br />J <br />K <br />L <br />Plat Map <br />“ Property Owners List <br />- Hardcover Pact Sheet Submitted by Applicant <br />- Survey Submitted by Applicant <br />- Staff Sketch <br />- Building Permit Application 11/22/76 <br />- Site Plan Submitted with Building Permit Application <br />- Council Minutes 10/25/76 <br />- Floor Plan for Addition <br />- Inspection Notice 9/16/91 <br />Description of Reqnest <br />Please refer to Exhibit B. The applicant advises that in <br />1976 with the issuance of a building permit, a wood deck was also <br />Included with the new construction. In addition, Mr. Rivers <br />notes that in the mid-80's the City was involved with the re <br />roofing of the structure and never noted the deck addition. <br />Rivers notes the deck has existed on the property for <br />approximately 15 years. The Building Inspector has advised that <br />it would not be part of the normal review procedure in issuing <br />re-roofing permits to review for a legal addition to a structure. <br />Mr. Oman advised that he remembers the re-roofing very well as it <br />was being done without the benefit of a building permit. Staff <br />would ask Planning Commission members to review Exhibits F, H and <br />K. Note Exhibit F, survey submitted by applicant dated December <br />1980, does not show the 3-season porch addition. Review Exhibit <br />H, building permit application for approved lakeside <br />construction. Note application specifically says no deck <br />approved. Review Exhibit K, note the Inspector has specifically <br />noted need for access stairs where existing deck is located. <br />Applicant should advise if the original construction involved a <br />deck area. The current structure is classified now as a 3-season <br />porch. Was the structure originally a deck converted to a 3- <br />season porch? <br />Baxdshlp Statement <br />The only additional comments of applicant are found in <br />Exhibit B which reads as follows: <br />"My hardship is in being asked to remove something that <br />has existed and I have used for 15 years." <br />It should be noted that the Building Inspection Department <br />was asked to comment on the new construction on the Rivers' <br />residential property by a nearby property owner who is also <br />dealing with similar lakeshore controls. In reviewing the files, <br />the Inspectors noted no official approvals for construction of <br />lakeside 3-season porch. <br />Isv <br />. M . Am •
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.