Laserfiche WebLink
^4 <br />MINUTES OP THE PL7VNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 Page 7 <br />O Jabbour reviewed once again for the applicant that since <br />the proposed improvement was over 50% of the fair market <br />value that he requires a lot area and lot width variance <br />in addition the proposed application would require an <br />approximate 6 ft. setback encroachment into the average <br />lakeshore setback area. <br />Jabbour noted for the applicant that the improvements <br />could all be designed to be placed within the average <br />setback <br />The applicant stated that it would demolish the structure <br />to move it back. In addition to demolishing several <br />mature trees. <br />Jabbour noted that he had at least 16 ft. to the nearest <br />tree and that he felt that this was enough area. <br />Ammerman presented to the Planning Commission a petition <br />of 8 signatures approving his proposed variance. <br />Mabusth read a list of violations that were observed <br />on Mr. Ammerman's property. A list of violations <br />acquired from several neighbors and staff observations <br />1 - Large boat being repaired <br />2 - Speed and pontoon boat being stored in winter <br />3 - SnctjT.iobile <br />4 - Red camaro without engine, being repaired. <br />5 - Sunday, July 26 four cars for sale. <br />Applicant stated he was advised by the Orono Police <br />that this was no problem. <br />Mabusth explained that the reason for reading these is <br />that its the position of the neighbors that they question <br />the right of the City to approve another variance when <br />he has not complied with the conditions of the previous <br />variances granted by the City. <br />AMMERMAN (CONT.) <br />Jabbour moved to grant a lot area and lot width variance <br />but to deny a setback variance that encroaches into the <br />average lakeshore setback area and to allow an additional <br />100 ft of hardcover for proposed design changes noted by <br />the applicant at the meeting and that the drainage pro­ <br />blems be addressed on the property with this new construction. <br />Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />© <br />•’ '■ ‘ .M <br />fV.-