Laserfiche WebLink
M1.''JTES. OF A PLNNSING OCJrnsSIQNJ MTJn ’ING IIHIJ) AllQIST 1, 1977 - PAGE 4 <br />• <br />Mr. ( Mrs. BccVcr were also present. They expressed their <br />concerns and objections regarding the proposal. Some of <br />these were: <br />(2) <br />(3) <br />(5) <br />(6) <br />When was the land legally platted? It was their <br />uiderstanding that if the land was legally platted <br />before the 1965 zoning, Orono policy would tend to <br />grant variances. <br />Did prior owner own the lot as an adjacent property? <br />Lot in question was less than the 1 acre area and <br />140 ft. width requirements. <br />His nearest neighbor is presently 140 ft. away, hhen <br />he purchased his house he was advised by his attorney <br />that the lot in question w.is unbuildable. He is <br />opposed to the 26 ft. setbacl; on Mr. Rhode's house. <br />Becker's prefer the quiet and felt that the noise <br />level would be increased. <br />A variance had been granted in October of 1974 to <br />this property siiiject to no other variances being <br />granted and the carriage house being razed. Mr. <br />Becker felt this should be enforced. <br />It is his understanding that a driveway should be <br />10 ft. from a lot line. Mr. Becker felt that the <br />proposed driveway for the Rhode property was too <br />close to the lot line. <br />No more than 1 principal building located on the <br />lot. <br />requested that the Planning Comaission should take these <br />Acems into account when making their decision. <br />After all the connents were heard from the concerned <br />parties involved, the Planning Conmission discussed the <br />proposal before them. <br />In addressing the points brought up by Mr. Becker, the <br />Planning Conmission advised that the lot in question <br />was a si2)standard lot rather than an unbuildable lot. <br />The variance granted in 1974 and the conditions set <br />forth at that time were noj^r void. Ha^-ever, the same <br />conditions could again be applied to this application. <br />Due to the fact that Mr. Rhode has \dthdrawn his <br />request to use the existing structure as a guest house, <br />there would be only one principal building on this lot. <br />Conceming the driveway being too close to the lot line, <br />Orono code does not specify ai^r setback requirement. <br />Conmission also discussed the 75 foot lakeshore and <br />average setback in relation to this property and the <br />adjacent and nearby properties. Given all the facts, <br />they felt that Mr. Rhode was cooperative in trying to <br />resolve this matter. <br />C <br />rf-f f IIA tl I <br />JACK RHODE <br />(continued) <br />(#210)