Laserfiche WebLink
m <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11, 1979 <br />PAGE 3 <br />Present were: Mr. and Mrs. Holzer, Mr. Robert <br />Mitchell (Holzer*s attorney), Jbr. Gerald Welsh <br />(Holzer*s contractor), Mr. and Mrs. Smerling, <br />Mr. Gerald Singer and Mr. James Gilbert (Smerling*s <br />attorneys), and Mr. James Orr (Smerling*s engineer). <br />■ m <br />ALEXANDER HOLZER <br />2677 Casco Point Road <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />(#436) <br />Commission member Hannah vacated his seat for this <br />application due to conflict of interest. <br />Mr. Mitchell stated that the Holzers and Smerlings <br />have previously agreed verbally on the replacement of <br />plantings and grass. He did not feel the height of <br />the wall was a problem. He stated that the grade <br />would be returned to what was existing prior to the <br />wall construction. There are no plans for a <br />swimming pool and it has been decided by the Holzers <br />to remove the pillars completely. He also stated <br />that the portion of the wall within 75* of the lake <br />has been reduced by three courses of block. <br />Mr. Mitchell felt the issues remaining were: <br />1. Conditional Use Permit - grading and filling. <br />2. Variance for work within 75* lakeshore setback. <br />3. Variance for exceeding hardcover both in the <br />0-75* and 75-250* area of the lake. <br />He stated that his c <br />of June 6, 1979. <br />•jinii lents supplemented his letter <br />Mr. Singer felt there was no basis for justifying <br />any structure within the 75* lakeshore setback. <br />He also felt beyond the 75* setback there was still <br />some question whether a structure should be permitted, <br />and if permitted, what height or where should it start? <br />It was their contention that studies and a permit <br />should have been done prior to any commencement of <br />work, therefore, all structures built without prior <br />City approval should be removed: property should be <br />restored to condition existing prior to that time <br />and at that point, if there is evidence to sustain <br />a granting of a variance, that would be the appropriate <br />time to consider such a request. <br />i