My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 1254
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 1200 - 1299 (September 15, 1980 - July 27, 1981)
>
Resolution 1254
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2015 1:38:40 PM
Creation date
11/12/2015 1:38:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
� . <br /> s <br /> l Cit� o� ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 1254 <br /> • � • • <br /> 19 . A guest house use is a change from the original <br /> non-conforming use of the boat house . <br /> 2a. The existing structure could not meet the setback <br /> standards required by the conditional use permit <br /> for a guest house . <br /> 21. Applicant applied for a conditional use permit to <br /> relocate a guest house on his three-acre site, but <br /> withdrew the application on January 19, 1981 when <br /> he realized the required average lakeshore setback <br /> for the relocated structure would interfere with an <br /> addition proposed for the main house. In that application, <br /> the second story would have been removed and the remaining <br /> boat house capped with a deck. <br /> 22 . The proposed addition of a three-seasoned porch <br /> within the restricted lakeshore setback area is <br /> • additional hardcover as prohibited by Section 34 . 202, <br /> and is a violation of the 75 ft. lakeshore setback <br /> regulations of Section 34 . 201. <br /> 23 . Applicant argues that the building permit issued by <br /> the City on May 7, 1971 must have included the request <br /> to build a second story even though the building permit <br /> clearly does not provide such a right and that in 1971, <br /> he would have had a right to build an upper story, such <br /> arguments have no merit for one or more of the following <br /> reasons: <br /> ' a) A building permit has not been provided for upper <br /> story. <br /> b) Building permit No. 2495 was written for only <br /> $500 .00 . <br /> c) Cost of construction material for a two-story <br /> structure in 1971 would have been more than $500 .00 . <br /> d) There are no architectural plans on file to <br /> substantiate a two-story structure. <br /> e) A conditional use permit would have been required <br /> • in 1971 and there is none on record. <br /> f) A mechanical permit would have been required in <br /> 1971 for all work done on furnace. <br /> PAGE � OF 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.