My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-06-1980 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1980 Planning Packets
>
10-06-1980 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:09:15 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:08:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Planning Commission and Council <br />#492 <br />Alan Olson* Village Planner <br />August 25* 1980 <br />SUBJECT: Variance - Beverly Smerling* 2683 Casco Point Road <br />On July 2* 1979* Mrs. Smerling applied for a conditional use permit to <br />^rform grading and filling in restoration of the shoreline bank which <br />had suffered slippage in the spring rains. Smerling proposed a completely <br />submerged soil retention system with no visible structure* only plantings <br />on the surface. This was approved by the Council on August 14* 1979. <br />Smerling*s contractor proceeded to do the work* but did not follow the <br />approved plans. Two wood retaining walls were placed part way up the <br />hill. One wall is exposed about 18"* the other about 24". Each wall <br />is about 20 ft. long. Plantings were conpleted. <br />Upon inspection this spring* the inplace work was found. A Stop Order <br />was placed because the work was not in conformance to approved plans. <br />Sm0rlin9 h^s now applied for an amendment to the conditional use permit <br />and a variance to 31.700 & 34.202 to permit keeping of the retaining <br />wall structures within 75 ft. of the lake. The contractor doing the <br />work (Kelly & Kelly Inc.) feels that because of the 60% slope, the <br />retaining walls provide better stabilization than the original subsurface <br />design. It should also be noted that this same concern was voiced by <br />the City Engineer iii review of the original application. <br />In summary, this review is a requested reconsideration of the plans <br />approved for application #492. The options include approving the changes <br />(finding necessary hardships, etc.); denying the amendment (forcing <br />compliance with the originally approved plans); or some compromise <br />solution between the above. <br />ii
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.