My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
10-28-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 1:30:43 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 1:26:08 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.
/
505
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
Zoning File #2135 <br />July 11, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />of years in the future, hence they are balancing the cost of pump out vs. the cost of replacing <br />the system. Staff finds this part of the proposal reasonable from the standpoint that we ate <br />concerned that the existing system likely would be contributing to the degradation of Long <br />Lake should it again be subjected to full family usage. Conversion of the existing septic tanks <br />to a suitable holding tank system may be as simple as plugging the outlet, or in fact may <br />require replacement with a sealed tank in order to ensure its viabilit) . The cost of the former <br />action is probably less than $100; tank replacement would likely be a $2,000 project. <br />Items for Discussion <br />1.Is construction of a second story above the existing one story residence located 49' <br />from the shoreline where a 100' setback is normally required, acceptable to the Planning <br />Commission? <br />2.Is the proposed 8' street setback for the attached garage acceptable as compared to the <br />0.5' street encroachment of the existing detached garage? <br />3.Is there justification for granting an intensificatir>n of the 32’ existing/proposed average <br />lakeshore setback encroachment by adding a second story ? <br />4.Does the applicant's hardcover proposal for 1,185 s.f (6.73%) in the 0-75' zone, and <br />1,467 s.f (13.46%) in the 75-250' zone, meet Planning Commission’s hardcover goals <br />for this property? <br />5.Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the additional structure or <br />fill that will be needed within the bluff impact zone in order to accommodate the <br />proposed construction? <br />6.Does Planning Commission accept applicant's proposal for conversion to a holding tank <br />and placement of covenants regarding the number of bedro« >ms, as sufficient to keep this <br />property from becoming a potential burden to the Citv and to this neighborhood via <br />future septic sy stem concerns? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />A recommendation for approval, partial approval or conditional approval should clearlv define <br />the hardships and justification for each of the variances (see Nancy Ga\uon’.s letter, Exiuoit D).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.