Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^L^USSIO^ MEETING <br />i.^LD AUGUST 15, 1994 <br />(r7) #1950 GLEN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC <br />HEARING - 8:40 TO 8:55 P.M. <br />Tte Affidavit of PublLaiion and Certificate of Mailing w^re noted. <br />Glen Upton was present. <br />Gaffron explained applicant proposes a room addition and attached garage to the existing house <br />which is presently within the 0-75 ’ setback. The existing lakeshore setback for the house is at <br />31’ with the addition proposed at 42’ and proposed deck at 41’. Hardcover is a concern within <br />the 0-75 ’ setback area with exis ’ing being at 17.8% and the proposal would increase it to <br />26 7%. No hardcover will be added to the 75-250 ’ area which is now at 0%. Lot coverage by <br />structures exists at 1,208 s.f. or 14.4% where 15% is allowed and 1.876 s.f. or 22.3% is <br />proposed lie pointed out that code allows any lot to havx: up to 1,500 s.t. of lot coverage by <br />structure so that the variance is not from 15% but from 1.500 s.f. Actually it amounts to a 376 <br />s.f. variancs. No side or street setback variances are necessary. <br />Lindquist inquired if the vacated county road was part of the propeny. Gaffron said it was m <br />easement for driveway purposes serving neighboring propenies and the casement cannot be <br />credited toward lot area. <br />Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. <br />John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood, does not agree with letting owners encroach further into the <br />lakeshore setback area. He referred to an incident in which he was denied permission to repair <br />a pagoda on his property because it was located within the 0-75’ setback area. He commented <br />eservone should be treated the same. <br />Lindquist felt tlie proposed improvement is too ambitious for the lot. Chair Schroeder also <br />agreed that the lot cannot take additional hardcover. <br />Glen Upton asked if he could receive credit for the land across the road. Peterson <^xplained <br />there is no problem with the lot area coverage but the concern is the hardcoverjssue. G en <br />Upton expressed displeasure with the fact that he has more land than his neighbors but Lhc, <br />Planning Commission will not allow him to improve his propert)'. <br />It was moved bv Peterson, seconded by Schroeder to recommend denial of Appl^'ation #1950 <br />for Glen Upton.'3685 Notth Shore Drive, for the variances as proposed. <br />Schroeder noted this matter would be placed on the City Council agenda for the September U. <br />1994 meeting. <br />8