My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
01-13-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2024 9:42:41 AM
Creation date
2/26/2024 9:39:13 AM
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.
/
254
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
M1NUTI9 OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 9, 1991(#5) #1697 JIM RIVERS, 1440 SHORELINE DRIVE - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCESJ1m Rivers was present.- RESOLUTION #3052Moorse explained this Is an application for after-the-fact variances to approve a deck constructed 13 years age without a permit, which replaced an existing stone patio.Goetten Informed Rivers that from this point on the Council wanted him to know that at anytime Improvements are proposed on <br />lakeshore property, approval must be obtained prior to <br />commencement of the work. <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution <br />#s3052, application #1697 for Jim Rivers, 1440 Shoreline Drive, <br />to approve aft ‘•he-fact variances for construction of a deck. <br />Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />(*#6) #1699 MICHAEL RENARD, <br />1185 TONKAWA ROAD - <br />RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3053 <br />It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution <br />#3053 for application #1699 for Michael Renard of 1185 Tonkawa <br />Road, to approve renewal variances to allow construction of an <br />addition to his existing residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />(#7) #1701 PHYLLIS B. SPRAGUE, <br />3340 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - <br />VARIANCE <br />Phyllis Sprague was present for this application. <br />Moorse explained this Is an application for variances requesting <br />a non—conforming residential use to be allowed on a commercially <br />zoned property. <br />Butler noted that the Planning Commission approved the use as an <br />accessory structure and as long as the applicant was aware that <br />the structure could never be used as a permanent dwelling, she <br />felt the proposal was acceptable. She noted the property could <br />never be sold as two Individual dwelling units. <br />Sprague noted that the parcels would be legally combined. <br />Callahan asked what the property Is zoned. <br />Mabusth noted It Is zoned B-2.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.