My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-14-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1994
>
03-14-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 1:27:51 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 1:23:16 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.
/
465
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
A. The lot was platted and developed prior to current lakeshore development <br />standards. <br />B. 94% of the lot area is within the 0-75’ setback area where no hardcover <br />improvements are allowed. <br />C. The propeny is surrounded by shoreline on three sides. <br />D. The existing house is located 46 ’ from the channel shoreline and 68 ’ from <br />the Maxwell Bav shoreline. <br />E. The City approved a 42’ setback for a two story addition to the shoreline <br />of Stubbs Bay in 1986. <br />F. In 1983 the City approved variances for a proposed garage addition that <br />would be located 39’ from the channel shoreline and 65 ’ from the <br />undetermined shoreline of Maxwell Bay. Total hardcover was approved <br />at 5,076 s.f. or 11%. <br />G. The house has no basement. <br />H.The addition will have no affect on the lake use of neighboring property <br />owners and will not be visually perceived as a widening of the house <br />when viewing from the lake. <br />The existing house is located less than 75’ from the shoreline on all three <br />sides of residence. <br />4. <br />J. Structural coverage is proposed at 5.3% where 15% is allowed. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property <br />Page 2 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.