My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1994
>
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2023 4:01:06 PM
Creation date
10/18/2023 3:53:03 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.
/
234
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
-r# /C <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers <br />Ron Moorse. City Administrator <br />Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Augiist 4, 1994 <br />#1954 LawreiKe D. Elsen, 2879 Casco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing <br />Pertinent Ordinance <br />Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback variance required for privacy fence <br />Required = 75' <br />Proposed = 5’ <br />Variance * 70* or 93% <br />List of Exhibits <br />A • Application <br />B - Applicant’s Addendum <br />C - Property Owners’ List <br />D - Plat Map <br />E - Neighbors’ Acknowledgement Forms <br />F - Resolution No. 3303 <br />G - Approved Site Plan for Application #1833 <br />H - Sunev <br />Description of Request <br />In July of 1993, the applicant received approval of multiple variances to allow a major <br />garage addition and other structural additions to the lakeside of the residence. Applicant was <br />asked to remove a 20’ x 8’ 4" shed at the lakeside of his property, because of hardcover <br />excesses. In the process of removing the shed, the existing privacy fencing along the <br />west/public access side of the property was exposed and found to be ir a severely deteriorated <br />condition. Applicant replaced fencing without a building permit and has reinstalled vines and <br />plantings on both sides of privacy fence. <br />Review Exhibit E, many of the adjacent neighbors reaffirmed the need to replace the <br />former fencing because of its dilapidated condition and potential for collapse. <br />Refer to Exhibit H, hatch marks along the west lot line locate the privacy fencing that <br />nad existed on the property. The new fence is installed within the same location except for an <br />approximate 5’ section that has been installed parallel to the shoreline. Applicants have advised <br />that this has helped to discourage the younger users of the public access from trespa.ssing into <br />their property. The former shed had served th-s purpose in the past.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.