My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-29-1984 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1984
>
10-29-1984 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2025 10:10:52 AM
Creation date
10/30/2025 10:01:22 AM
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.
/
362
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
Report on lot area - width variances from September 77 to presont: <br />Total Applications - 49 <br />46 Approved <br />Denied <br />1 C►CJ-80 80-6(- 60-40 40-24) <br />1 approved 16 approved 20 approved 7 approved 2 approved 46 <br />(*1) 1 denied (*2) 1 denied (*') 1 denied = 3 <br />(*1) #635 Alden Anderson (conceptal denial - formal resolution not adopted) <br />rural property did not meet area and width <br />requirments. <br />(*2) #706 Home Builders of American (conc.C'ptual denial - formal resolution <br />not adopted) shape of lot, lakeshore setbacks and <br />travelled Cite road creating an "unbuildable <br />envelope" would need setbacl:: variance. <br />11,400 s.f. - req. s.f. <br />(*?) #345 Arthur h1. Hintz - assessed valuation reflected not a buildable <br />lot, not assessed a sewer unit, unbuildable <br />envelope because of depth of lot and 1 akeshore <br />setback - 8,C►('►U s.f. - req. 21,78C) s.f. <br />I have i-loci enclosed a table of approved variances referenced by Mr. <br />Hoffman, compiled by his office for the Noble variance apr)lication. Note <br />that many of the applications involved sL-tback or hardcover- variances along <br />with lot area and lot width variances. Some of them you may remember back <br />to 1977 or 1978 wheri the State Building Code Division repeated the section <br />of the code that required a new review ( if lot was found substandard) if <br />the repair to ,an existing structure totaled more than `-10 of the current <br />assessed market value of the structure. Today reviews like this merely <br />involve setback , hardcover variance. Current lot area and lot width <br />applications involve vacant lots or lots that contain seasonal cabins or <br />partially destroyed, uninhabited principal structures. My review <br />considered froth sewered end unsewered properites. <br />Another poi rit that I found of interest as 1 proceeded with my review <br />was that most applicants would either formally withdraw their applications <br />or fail to appear before Council when action was scheduled if denial <br />appeared inevitable. Such as the Anderson - formal withdrawal and American <br />Homes - postponed until future date. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.