Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A PUNNIM C -MMISSION Y; TING BF.T.D !4017:?MER 7, 1977 - :AGE 7 <br />The project(-d location for disposal of the rpolls was the rain <br />concern of the Commission. Orono hss ndopted a policy to deny <br />previous applicRtions for disporR1 of si,oils within 1,000 ft. <br />of the shoreline. <br />After a lengthy discussion, ffassel movedo Hannah seconded, 75 <br />table this applleRLion with the reques thnt a detailed so <br />Trip ar.4 detailed plan for dredging be siiLvnitted with the under- <br />stauding that the dredging and spoils dei.osit will not violate <br />Ordinance J.125� and with the understaraiing that the loud -cat <br />dredging method will ope.ate from the environm.•ntal standpoint <br />as reprer-nted. 'rhe Planning Con.Mssien giw•:s co.r.,eptliRI ar,1 val <br />to going forward end getting this data with the understanding <br />that approval of the projecte:i spoils disposal site would be <br />determined after careful rc:v:ew of all reports doeu*,enting <br />aivPntngLcs from project Hnd F ;su -,Ince that project w:)uid not <br />adversely effect the quality of the water. Proposed dislx,sal <br />site should be u,srked. <br />Motion - Ayes (4), Nays (1) - Hurr, Abstain (1) - McDonald. <br />Mr. Butterfield was present. Re is requesting an addition <br />to the exist'ng stricture. The eiiltion to Vie south end of tt.e <br />house would not interfere with the existing non-conforning <br />side yard setback to the north. The Zoning Administrator <br />advised ti,at staff had issued a permit for the family and <br />recreation room portion subject to approval of the foyer. The <br />survey submitted was somewhat vague. The Planning Commission <br />Interpreted the survey to indicate the existing front yard <br />setback to be 24 ft. A variance of 81 ft. would be required. <br />After some review, Harsel m. ved, <br />approval of the 18 ft. side yard <br />varian•' per plan submitted. <br />Abtion Ayes (6), ;lays (0). <br />Hamnerel seconded, to recommend <br />and 81 ft. front setback <br />Mr. hblde wns present. He is requesting approval to construct <br />a second story on his existing residence which is currently <br />non -conforming in lot area, 1Fke and side setbacks. The <br />proposal would not increase tine existing T,aryieover. The .,ronosed <br />Flan ind'.cates a 20 ft. height limit. <br />Mr. Which informed the Planning Commission this application <br />pas submitted prior to the action recently taken by Council <br />granting staff approval of tituat.ions of this nature. <br />'Me Yl !�ru 'ram Ccrvn:esion sup�ested the apnl icrint cor,bne tare <br />subje-ct pro_ erty with his property ecross t*,e street. Tne <br />applicant in{iicated no objection to this. He was advised <br />that a lot combination would eliminate any building on this <br />Froperty across the street. <br />W-Dr-nald ►-:,wed, Hsi.,:-icrel seconded, to api rival of <br />the variance sabjerct to combination of Tots 8, 17 pnd 18 into <br />one j.areel. Justification; no increase in hardcover. <br />►UtIon - Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />IARF.N BUi"I'FM IPLD <br />3925 WATeRVOWN HEAD <br />FifWr & SIDE SMACK FOR <br />HOUSE ADDITTON TO EX1 TIN <br />'VON-CONY'ORMING WCATIOU <br />f326 <br />✓�YMD10 "MM. ' : DIZZ <br />1428 BALDUR PAPK ROAD <br />VARIANCE - LOT AREA & KIV <br />AND TAKESHORE A SIDE YARD <br />SF.i'BACK ON EXISTTNG NON- <br />COMPORMING IOT AND h0USE <br />1327 <br />