Laserfiche WebLink
iiHi <br />F. ^VHITE <br />imiLL ROAD <br />E - REAR YARD SETBACK <br />:e REARDCN <br />[P DYKSTRA) <br />3RTH SIDRE DRIVE <br />I SI ON (FINAL) <br />iODE <br />^INS roiNT ROAD <br />:E - LOT AREA § WIDTH <br />lONAL USE PERNDT <br />‘•a <br />\\ <br />% ! <br />»ts mMINUTES OF A PLANNING Ca^ASSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 1, 1977 - PAGE 4 <br />Mr. § Mrs. Becker were also present. They expressed their <br />concerns and objections regarding the proposal. Some of <br />these were: <br />IVhen was the land legally platted? It was their <br />understanding that if the land was legally platted <br />before the 1965 zoning, Orono policy would tend to <br />grant variances. „ <br />Did prior owner own the lot as an adjacent property. <br />Lot in question was less than the 1 acre a^e^i and <br />140 ft. width requirements. <br />His nearest neighbor is presently 140 ft. away, hhen <br />he purchased his house he was advised by his attorney <br />that the lot in question was unbuildable. He is <br />opposed to the 26 ft. setback on Mr. Rhode's house. <br />Becker's prefer the quiet and felt that the noise <br />level would be increased. . <br />A variance had been granted in October of 1974 to <br />this property subject to no other variances being <br />granted and the carriage house being razed. Mr. <br />Becker felt this should be enforced. <br />It is his understanding that a driveway should be <br />10 ft. from a lot line. Mr. Becker felt that the <br />proposed driveway for the Rhode property was too <br />close to the lot line. <br />No more than 1 principal building located on tlie <br />lot. <br />He requested that the Planning Conmission should take these <br />items into account when making their decision. <br />After all the comments were heard frcm the concerned <br />parties involved, the Planning Commission discussed the <br />proposal before them. <br />In addressing the points brought up by Mr. Becker, the <br />Planning Conmission advised that the lot in question <br />was a substandard lot rather than an unbuUdable lot. <br />The variance granted in 1974 and the conditions set <br />forth at that time were nov^r void. However, the sanie <br />conditions could again be applied to this application. <br />Due to the fact that Mr. Rhode has witlidrawn his <br />request to use the existing structure as a guest house, <br />there would be only one principal biiilding on this lot. <br />Concerning the driveway being too close to the lot line, <br />Orono code does iioL specify ajiy setback requiiemeiit. <br />Commission also discussed the 75 foot lakeshore and <br />average setback in relation to this property and the <br />adjacent and nearby properties. Given all the facts, <br />they felt that Mr. Rhode was cooperative in trying to <br />resolve this matter. <br />JACK R}«DE <br />(continued) <br />(#210) <br />minutes of a plann: <br />Conmission also de‘ <br />v/ere to be gravel, <br />25% hardcover requ; <br />There were some ne; <br />regard to the carr <br />felt that there wa <br />of the lot and the <br />removed. <br />Guthrie moved, Hos <br />of the application <br />in recognition of <br />house and existing <br />hfotion:4 ayes 0^ <br />2 nays (D <br />1 Abstain <br />Asst. Zeming Admin <br />is for filling and <br />This area had been <br />in over the years, <br />to refill area so <br />and level off to ir <br />recommended that t <br />front prior to any <br />Mr. Metz was prese <br />to use sand or are <br />Commission express <br />in the lakeshore £ <br />of a natural situj <br />new. <br />After some disci: <br />recommend approv <br />be riprapped pri <br />fill be approved <br />Nays (0), Abstai <br />Planning Commissh <br />advising that the^ <br />Their request is <br />of a horse. Appl: <br />and Willow and ha: <br />which is 2.68 acn <br />across Willow Dri” <br />Adjoining propert; <br />no objection to t <br />Hannah moved, Hos <br />until the next me <br />to indicate where <br />length of the pre