My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-13-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
03-13-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:20:52 PM
Creation date
3/25/2025 1:17:23 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.
/
513
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
Zoning File #1363 <br />February 14, 1989 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />b) The hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone is justified by <br />removals in the 0-75' zone. All of the proposed hardcover is <br />necessary to preserve substantial property rights of the owners. <br />c) Average lakeshore setback variance is appropriate given that <br />the actual views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property <br />owners will substantially Increase as a result of removal of the <br />existing house. Furthermore, encroachment of the proposed house <br />past the average setback line is necessary to preserve an <br />existing mature oak tree on the property without re-designing the <br />proposed residence. <br />d) The variances requested are consistent with variances granted <br />for upgrade of other residences in the Baldur Park neighborhood <br />in recent years. <br />e) The unique elevated nature of the property in relation to the <br />surrounding properties, suggests that the residence must be <br />located near the highest elevation and further from the road in <br />order to benefit from the northerly view of the lake, and <br />therefore requires a longer driveway. <br />f) The plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique <br />to t-heir property and were not created by the landowner. <br />g) Granting of the variances requested will not alter the <br />essential character of the locality. <br />2. If Planning Commission wishes to deny the application, opposite <br />findings from those noted above should be included in your <br />recommendation . <br />3. Table for further information or revision. If this option is <br />chosen. Planning Commission should give applicant clear direction what <br />additional revisions are necessary. <br />If a recommendation for approval is forthcoming. Planning Commission <br />should consider including the following conditions of approval: <br />1. Removal of all hardcover items noted by applicant as being <br />proposed for removal on the revised plan. <br />2. Property owner shall be required to grade the area of the removed <br />foundation back to original contours, as verified by the City <br />Engineer.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.