My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:34:57 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:30:47 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
395
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
MI.MJTKSOF TIIK <br />ORONO PLANNINX; COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 19, 2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.in. <br />district All that remains in the setback zone arc the steps leading to the lake, a deck. shed, and <br />two retaining walls <br />Botteiiberg indicated the topography of the property is fairly flat except approximately 4.'>' from the <br />lakcshore, at which point it drops signilicantK to the lake The City dws not ha\e a permit on file for <br />the deck or shed, although it appears it has been there for main years A review of Cit\ files has <br />determined that a boat house was located there at least until 19X6 The /onmg cik Ic allows stairwass uj) <br />to 4’ wide, but landings no more than .^2 square feet m area Decks and rexifed shelters are not allowed <br />Bottenberg indicated the shelter is painted white and is quite noticeable from the lake <br />Ale.xander stated instead of remcxieling the existing house. the\ e!‘.',5ed to pull the house back be\ond <br />the 75' mark, and also attempted to comply with all the other regulations and building standards <br />applicable to this lot Alexander stated the Ap|)hcaiit would like to retain the shed and tr\ to blend it in <br />more with the property Alexander noted this is a pre-existing condition <br />There were no public comments relating to this application <br />I lawn iiu|uired why the I’laiining Commission did not see this matter prior to the time the building <br />permit was issued <br />Weinberger stated the Applicants did contact Staff prior to apply mg for a building peniiit, noting an <br />agreement was leachcd that if the deck and shed were not approx ed. they would be remox ed <br />Kluth inquired xxhat the hardship is for keeping that structure <br />Alexander stated her understanding is that since there is not a primary strueture eurrentlx. thex need a <br />variance to keep the shed <br />I lawn sl.ited there are two xarianees being requested tonight The first one relates to allowing an <br />aecessiiry strueture to remain without a piinetpal strueture llaxxn stated xxheii the existing residence* is <br />tom down and a new residence is to k* constructed on the lot. the project is then consideied to be new <br />eonstruetion and a hardshi|i inherent xvith the land must be demonstrated on whv the shed should <br />remain <br />P.ACE 31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.