My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
10-28-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2024 1:42:05 PM
Creation date
7/19/2024 1:39:53 PM
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.
/
247
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
r <br />I <br />i * <br />MINUTES OF THE NEOULAN ONONO COUNCIL MEETIN# - OCTOSEN 14, 1091 <br />omour askid If the back of the bathhouse Is the retaining eall. <br />Millor concurrsd it is. Hs stfltsd thdt only two new footings <br />were installed and felt this did not exceed 50% of the value as <br />the entire structure should be considered as a whole. <br />Goetten asked who ra^.^es the determination on the 50%. <br />Jabbour noted the Council is responsible for making that <br />determination. <br />Callahan felt the enclosure should be treated as a new structure. <br />Miller noted the structure was enclosed prior to the <br />Improvements. He explained he is a fairly new homeowner in Orono <br />and was unaware of the rules. He would not have risked losing <br />the bathhouse. <br />Barrett warned that If the non-conforming structure had been <br />determined to be in a deteriorated state, it would have to be <br />removed. <br />Jabbour asked If this were determined if the entire structure <br />would have to be removed or Just the bathhouse. <br />Barrett Indicated <br />appropriate. <br />whatever portion the Council deemed <br />Hiller noted ho plans to attend future Planning Commission <br />meetings to see how they handle other similar situations as he <br />felt he was treated unfairly. <br />Moos noted she did not feel he was treated unfairly or unjustly <br />by the Planning Commission. <br />Goetten advised that each application is looked at individually <br />by the Commission as each has different c»rcumstances. <br />(#7) #16B4 DAVID A ANNE GRAHAM <br />2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD <br />VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3027 <br />David Graham was present for this application. <br />Moorse explained this application involves the improvement of an <br />existing residence structure involving the expansion of a second <br />story and the installation of s two tiered deck replacing an <br />existing patio/deck area. <br />Mabusth concurred that the applicant is proposing an expansion of <br />a second story addition in the mid-sect>on of the house, the <br />rcwovAl of on oxlstlng patio araa and thraa-^saason porch <br />raplacing It with a two story deck. The original araa of the <br />thrae**saason porch and patio shall ba raplacad with a trallls and <br />natural ground cover restored resulting in no hardcover. <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.