12-01-1979 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF A PLANNING CDMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 - PAGE 4 Rovegno made a motion to reconsider an addition to the approving motion; Th^t a condition be added that no additional hardcover be allowed within the 0-75’ setback area. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (1). CHARLES CARL 3685 North Shore Drive VARIANCE (#578) Cont. Rovegno made a motion to add the following to the above noted condition that until County right of way is vacated, additional variances will not be granted to the property. Motion seconded by Adams. Vote; Ayes (6), Nays (1). Motion passed. I Minority Opinion - Frahm ft It the application should be denied based on the following; 1. Addition of 12% hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. 2. According to our standards, this application should be viewed as new construction (more than 50% of the assessed valuation). 3. It would be better to delay until the vacation is completed because the majority of improvements could be located out of protected area. Carl asked that the application be scheduled for action at the October 14, 1980 Council meeting. Mr. Lorge and the following neighbors were present; Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hunt, 2691 Casco Point Road Mrs. Sam Child, 2715 Casco Point Road ' Raoul Schander, 2745 Casco Point Road RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE. («581) The following is a summary of the applicant's position.; • 1. 2. Lots on both sides are occupied. The proposal is typical of existing neighborhood 3. development. On purchase of property, applicant was informed 4. 5. 6. that this was a buildable and separate lot - fee was based on that assumption. Properties have been taxed separately - never receiving benefit of homestead relief. House is located solely on Lot 4. He recognizes the code requiring 100* in width, but he notes that the DaMart site plan proves even an ambitious house can conform to all the zoning standards.