Laserfiche WebLink
r?‘V:t* <br />■ v' <br />Tos <br />I <br />■ '-f <br />Fron: <br />£1>ate: <br />; . k ‘ <br />,'-v^ <br />i \ \ <br />1'. > • <br />Subject: <br />r,- <br />’iy <br />i. <br />^!r:' <br />#’■W: <br />•a <br />% <br />'syrft- <br />&fe <br />Y ‘*' •■' <br />M'^’- <br />IK'-:* ,r <br />h: <br />3^- <br />V • <br />ift <br />te- <br />I- <br />. ■ <br />■mI <br />- V* „, <br />••r'-^,',i. 'I.' <br />sfg.'.iiV-'. •. <br />Cl'/' <br />Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />April 8, 1992 <br />Shoreland Ordinance - Response from DNR <br />Attached is a letter rrom rne uwk requeauj-iiy auuj.uxv^iiaj. <br />information regarding our definition of "steep slope" and the <br />issue of lock boxes. Regarding Item Ir staff will research the <br />background of our current ordinance and attempt to^ find some <br />technical justification for our definition. Regarding Item 2, <br />Council should consider whether the 10' setback for lock boxes is <br />acceptable. If so, we could easily revise the ordinance to omit <br />the need for flexibility in this section. Arguably, the only <br />time when a 10* setback would not be possible is in a steep slope <br />situation where there is not a 10' strip of flat area at the <br />shoreline in which to construct a lock box. <br />Staff Re dation <br />1. <br />weeks. <br />2. <br />r r ' *------------------------------------------------- - <br />revised to require a 10' setback fromthe OHWL. <br />18% <br />two <br />56, <br />be <br />r <br />fV <br />Isv 0* <br />I <br />fJ ,,W>Vlt <br />-•V- <br />i