My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-13-1978 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
11-13-1978 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 12:52:03 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 12:51:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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).
View images
View plain text
November 3, 1978 <br />Alexander Hblzer <br />2677 Casco Point Road <br />Conditional Use Permit & Variance <br />Page 2 <br />. i »■ <br />2. <br />I <br />m- 4 <br />3. <br />L. <br />The side walls should come no closer than 10 ft. to the street <br />line in front of the garage for visibility reasons. The side <br />walls should not encroach the 75 ft. lakeshore setback as a <br />violation of 34.202 prohibiting structures in the protected <br />area. (I would argue that a 3**l/2 ft. high wood or chain link <br />fence could be built within the 75 ft. setback as such a fence <br />does not involve excavation or hardcover.) <br />This work appears to be an ordinance violation requiring <br />correction, removal or variance as follows: <br />a) all work within 75 ft. of the shoreline <br />b) all work exceeding 3-1/2 ft. high between the lakeside <br />of the Holtzer house and the 75 ft. line <br />c) all work exceeding 6 ft. high along the remaining <br />side line. <br />The Planning Comnission should make a policy recomnendation <br />regarding the height of spaced pillars. Should these or <br />should pillars in genera] not be required to be within the <br />6 ft. height limitation. <br />The retaining wall is totally within the 75 ft. setback area <br />requiring removal or a variance to 34.202. The applicant <br />argues that this wall is necessary for erosion control. If <br />this were the case, the wall would be at the base of the slope, <br />not at the top. Holtzers have advised staff that the wall was <br />constructed to permit leveling of the upper area for construction <br />of a patio and swimming pool. It should be noted that the <br />existing hardcover between 75 ft. and 250 ft. already exceeds <br />the 25X allowable thereby prohibiting further hardcover without <br />an additional variance. <br />The filling requires a conditional use permit according to <br />31.700 and a variance to 31.830. Of particular concern is the <br />dirt that has been dumped over the edge of the lakeshore bluff. <br />There has been no evidence of hardship requiring this work. <br />There has been no stated intention to do any additional %rork <br />to stabilize the bank such as plantings or additional retaining <br />walls. <br />i <br />ylMSi/
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.