Laserfiche WebLink
r' <br />th <br />:v- <br />C: <br />i <br />'r‘.- <br />I <br />P <br />*t: <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE U573-KELLY/MASSEY CONTINUED <br />Ms. Kelly added, ■’T^a5 year ^ tr.e^ res^-en .•.e._ a^.- -- pu <br />their docks in, last year we coo*.. <br />that sc.tethint beBellows suggested <br />title stating that it nay not be <br />filed in wns <br />variances to utilize tne riparian <br />possiblti zo accdin th6 prop6r <br />rights of Lo!i 2. She said, <br />•£SS‘'£;l;riv <br />havrthe^right^Vo do^ wL^ev^r ^s necessary^ to <br />Can the Planning Commission recommend to council, should ^hey <br />Approve this subdivision, that they incorporate such a notice in <br />a resolution?" <br />nabusth advised that such a recotraencatior. •■.ouid be <br />appropriate <br />Ms. Kelly asked whether such a notice v/ould afreet her <br />property and her ability to put in he_ -ock. <br />Bellows replied, "This would only apply to Lot 2 and wouxo <br />not limit your use of your property. The notice does not mean <br />that a variance could not be granted, it is merely a warning tha <br />a variance is required." <br />Mabusth noted that Lot 3 will have to meet the new setbacks <br />from the newly defined lot line \^°?4n*It was observed that the current cioc.^ on the Ho..nan prope. w. <br />appear close to the new lot lane. <br />Johnson asked, "Staff is recommending that the lot line be <br />rearranged to provide adequate dry, contiguous .ana.' <br />Mabusth replied, "T.hat is correct. <br />the lot lines are adjusted as long as the ^ lOO wi-th ^.s <br />maintained at the rear of the front yarn setoacK line ana ..he /5 <br />setback line for all lots.” <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this <br />application and the Public '• 'aring was closed. <br />It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend <br />approval of application 11573, for a <br />Accordance with staff recommendations 1 to 5, and t.hat an <br />to future ownere of Lot 2 is included in the resolution regarding <br />tSe n«” for a V °/i. °ce for any structure that would be used to <br />the doc* Mr. smith asked whether the Planning Commission <br />SU the^^pli^ant’s proposal for lot »*'Mabust; <br />s^itri iSSt condition »3 would be excluded <br />motion to .nclude staff rec-ommendations 1, 2, 4, and 5. Mo s <br />- 2 -