My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-1989 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1989
>
08-21-1989 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2023 3:31:32 PM
Creation date
11/22/2023 12:23:12 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.
/
246
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- h■>^53«Sfe-:'v v::;i::^/ -I/=^'■St ; •:-;r • v:Zoning Pile #1437-IdstroB> August 14, 1989 Page Two of Twonoted this was the proposed future barn location, and had placed the driveway accordingly to serve both the barn and residence.7. Note also that only the barn is proposed to be <br />constructed at this time. The plans submitted show a potential, <br />future addition to the barn which will not be constructed at this <br />time, but which would require a future zoning application <br />the need for variances and a conditional use permit (the future <br />addition would be attached to the barn at the roof line, and <br />would consist of a garage and tack room that could potentially <br />function as a guest house). <br />®**®®5his**application is similiar in nature to the recent Brown <br />detached oarage request on North Stubbs Bay Road. Adequate <br />setbacks are provided so that the visual impact of this structure <br />will be minimal. Also note that under the current code, this <br />building would be exempt from the 1,000 s.f. <br />restrictions since it is a barn, and under the proposed Ordinance <br />would fall within the limitations on accessory structure size for <br />a lot of 10 acres in area. If and when the new ordinance is <br />approved by the Council, any future subdivision of the <br />applicant's property would, of course, be subject to that new <br />ordinance. <br />Staff lUii n—f ndnfIrm ** . «Staff recommends approval. Findings for a recommendation of <br />approval could include the following: <br />1. The proposed setbacks and existing vegetation tend to <br />make the visual impact of this structure minimal. <br />2. The hardship is that the existing house sits relatively <br />near the rear lot line. The long, narrow shape of the lot makes <br />it impossible to meet the required "public" horse barn setbacks <br />on nny other location in the lot. <br />c .f
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.