My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-26-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
09-26-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 11:15:47 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 11:12:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
MINITES OF THE REGULAR OHONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12. IW <br />(Item #4 - McKinnty - Combrnied) <br />M»wc CObli* nwtwied, Hun wcooded, to d«iy tl* lequea to the p <br />Aeeewr »d witcf Sne ICCTM chuge end to d«ct tuff to iteolve the ^ of t^^ <br />of the bedroom in the lower level, and to remove all furniture stored in the garage by <br />City Council meeting of 9/26/94 Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br />Eidsen asked for clarificatioo on the need to install a window CallahM Mated it <br />be detennined by the staff report at the next meeting Hurr commemed that it isto police the sleeping arrangements and if historically used for sleeping, a ready sohitwo <br />would be to mstall the window <br />(•#5) #1941 LEROY AND WANDA RSCHBACK, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRI^X <br />- VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3441 <br />Jabbour motioned, Goetten seconded, to approve the variance #1941 as proposed Ayes <br />4, NaysO <br />(#4) #1944 BRADLEY AND DINA ETHERINCTON, 4055 ELM STREET - <br />VARUNCE RESOLUTION #3442 <br />Mabusth stated this is the owner's fourth area variance application, the first in 1978 <br />There have been no changes in zoning Applicant's provided an updated surv^ M <br />requested as well as a development plan The Planning Comim^n was concr^ with <br />tte steep slopes and stipulated there would be no draining to cither the east or w^ Tte <br />En^neer approved downspouts as well as underground tUes which dran out to the str^ <br />The driveway was reviewed by Enginee. and Staff The proposal will result in <br />tree removal The main concern of the neighbors is that the survey is incorrect Matmsth <br />stated there is no difference betweei. th- oriyr^ of 1976 a^ present survey with <br />exception of 2" side setback on east side Neighbor Laue has not received the resu <br />her survey Applicants have met all requirements It was the nei^rs’ obhgation to <br />present aiiything to refute application and nothing has been received <br />Tim Feyo. husband of owner, had their surveyor meet with su^eyor <br />said the survey of 8/4/94 was most accurate except for a 3 difference in S3k coiner <br />lot Surveyor stated Mrs Laue was informed of findings <br />/-.lUi.,, asked Fe> o if he believed his survey to be correct and tf he was satisfied with <br />the application packet and resolution presented Feyo responded yes
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.