My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 12:15:12 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 12:10:59 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.
/
401
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
Shed by Lakeshore: <br />The shed located by the lakeshore is non conforming. Staff reviewed the record for this property <br />and it was determined that staff had attempted to get the previous property owner in the 1980 ’s to <br />remove the* <br />shed. It w as referred to as a fish house on a concrete block foundation. Orono zoning Code <br />prohibits the placing of temporary or permanent structures within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The <br />structure is larger than a permitted lock box. <br />Lot Coverage by Structures: <br />The amount of lot coverage by structures is increasing slightly due to the larger size of the deck. <br />The lot coverage by structures was 2,000 s.f (2,512 s.f with old deck) and is proposed to be <br />2,571 s.f. an increase of 59 s.f to what previously existed. <br />Statement of Hardship: <br />The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. <br />Issues for Consideration: <br />1. The existing residence was built in 1976. <br />2. Does the Planning Commission feel the deck and three season porch are in character with the <br />neighborhood? Will the three season porch limit lake views by adjacent neighbors? If so, w hat <br />is the hardship? <br />3. Would the Planning Commission rather have the deck be the same size as existed and meet <br />the 10 ’ side yard setback in order to bring the deck into greater conformity? <br />4. The hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is above the allowed 25%. The existing driveway <br />is proposed to be reduced to 16 ’ wide and should not be reduced any further. Are there other <br />items in the 75-250 ’ setback zone that can be removed to further reduce hardcover? <br />5. The lakeshore shed is .lon-conforming and should have been removed or relocated in 1981 <br />6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />«t02-2823 Ronald Cloud <br />3460 North Shore Drive <br />9/5/2002 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />L. I ■ I H ■ aOi —
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.