My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-09-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
05-09-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 3:37:49 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 3:32:01 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.
/
522
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: May 3, <br />ITEM NO.: ^ <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Jeanne A. Mabusih <br />Title Building Sl Zoning Administrator <br />AdministrattMT Revkwed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: #1916 Irwin and Alex Jacobs. 1700 Shoreline Drive - After-ihe-Fact <br />Variance - Resolution <br />Brief Review of Application <br />Please review the enclosed staff memo dated April 14, 1994 for more detail and <br />background on this review. Council was advised of applicant’s immediate iKed to install a <br />guardhouse in the fall of 1993. Applicant proceeded to construct guardhouse without the <br />necessary permit approvals with the full understanding mat an after-the-fact variance would be <br />required! In September of 1993, applicant received approval of a variance to the allowed total <br />area of accessory structures on the property proposed at 10,633 s.f. where only 6,000 s.f. would <br />be allowed. <br />Councilmembers may remember that applicant was given the opportunity to alter one of <br />the existing accessory struemres by 160 s.f. so that the allowed accessory structure area would <br />remain at the approved level. Applicant’s contractor has advised that this was not feasible and <br />applicant had to proceed with construction of guardhouse. <br />The Planning Commission wanted to be on record as stating that they are not supportive <br />of after-the-fact variances and were concerned with the precedent setting aspect of such <br />approvals. Staff noted that circumstances surrounding this request were unique and that the <br />approval resolution would include the necessary findings. <br />The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variance application <br />subject to applicant submitting payment for penalty fees for both variance application and <br />building permit application. The applicant has made the necessary penalty fee payment for the <br />variance application. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions <br />of the Planning Commission approval.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.