My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1980
>
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:06:12 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:04:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
Mayor Win. Brad Van Nest <br />d. <br />e. <br />f. <br />July 8, 1980 <br />Page 2 <br />to be illegal subdivisions of 1410 Bohns <br />Point Road are now, on the basis of a court <br />decision, considered "legal." Also, how do <br />we know that the Planning Commission would <br />have approved a variance had it known all of <br />these facts: that the lot was only 67 percent <br />of approved zoning size (one acre), that the <br />width was substandard relative to the Zoning <br />Code, that the position of the proposed Rhode <br />house violates Section 34.201 of the Code <br />relating to setback distance from the lake, <br />that building the Rhode house 26 feet from <br />the Becker house would substantially reduce <br />the value of the Becker house, that there <br />were two valid easements across the property <br />including dock rights and rights to 55 feet <br />of beach, that a survey dated 9-3-74 proves <br />Fred Rogers controlled both ^145 North Shore <br />Drive and 1410 Bohnr Point Road, and that the <br />easements represent a legal subdivision of <br />1410 Bohns Point Road. Certainly, I have a <br />right to know why the City of Orono is break <br />ing precedent and permitting multiple use of <br />the lot which by the City's own definition <br />is an "out lot" or "illegal subdivision." <br />According to the Orono Zoning Code, if a <br />variance is not acted upon within a 12-month <br />period after Council approval, it must be <br />resubmitted to the Planning Commission <br />(Sec. 32.371). <br />Sections 32.350 and 32.370, reasonably con <br />strued, say that if part of a variance is <br />denied or violated, a new variance must be <br />submitted. <br />Section II, Paragraph 4 of Resolution 851 <br />states that if Mr. Rhode fails to meet all <br />of the provirions in the resolution, the <br />variance will be considered denied. Mr. <br />Rhode did not meet the provisions of the <br />resolution, therefore, the variance is auto <br />matically denied. <br />1 <br />ta
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.