Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�,!�;L1ii:5 OF A Pt_►�;�ItiG O.Tf'ISSI(Y� IL f;fING UFM AUGNST 1, 1977 - PA(Z 4 ;.IT. & Mrs. Beeler were also pres(nt. They expressed their corweins and obje•cticlris regarding the proposal. Sore of owhese ware: (1) 1-1ien was t.}ue land leF,ally platted? It i,;+s their urlderstaiuling tliat if the lariri was let•ally platted before the 1965 7orninE, Orono policy v;nuld tend to grant vari�lnt es. (2) Did prior cn�ner mn the lot as an adjacent property? (3) Lot in question was less than the 1 acre area and 140 ft. width requi rcrN•nts. (4) His nearest neighbor is prc;t-ntly 140 ft. away. 1•,iien he purchased his house lie was a-lvi!�ed by his attorney that the lot in question was unbuildahle. lie is opposed to the 26 ft. setback on Mr. Wio3e's house. (S) Becher's prefer the quiet and felt that the noise level watld be increased. (6) A variance had been granted in 0Vtol,er of 1974 to this property subject to no other variances being granted and the carriage house being razed. Mr. Becker felt this should be enforced. (7) It is his understanding that a drivoway should he 10 ft. from a lot line. l4r. F.ecker felt that the proposed drivci:ay for the Rlio-7e property was too close to the lot line. (8) No more than 1 principal building located on the lot. requested that the Planning C%mni_-ion should take these .,ems into acco►mt when making their 6L, ion. After all the comments were heard from the , rned parties involved, the Planning Commission dis,-, A the proposal before them. In addressing the points brought up by Mr. Becker, thL Planning Commission advised that the lot in question was a substandard lot rather than an umbuildable lot. The variance granted in 1974 and the conditions set forth at that time were now void. lia;Pvrer, the same conditions could again be applied to this application. Due to the fact that Mr. Rhode has withdrawn his request to use the existing structure as a guest house, there would be only one principal hMrilding on this lot. Concerning the driveway being too close to the lot line, Orono code does not specify any setback rep ui remv>nt. Commission also discussed the 7S foot lal.(•,hore and average setback in relation to this property and the adjacent and nearby properties. (-,i ven all the facts, they felt that 1-tr. Rhode was cooperative in trying to resolve this +t t er. C JACK k'' *)DE (rant inu(•d) (0210)