|
jTcM I
<br />Mr. Gregg Hanna t s rRvE APRRa%Ih4 ,x 7y ^' v't,ex,
<br />Page 2 s, &;cr r rc. A/t: ;'r+r_/7 b�R•+1� E 5 N.�tr� pq
<br />g /+r 7Hgr rirYr- s�AfA NC_te41 IOvRC=ssEO
<br />July 6, 1977. �tiE A1,CA?AC4 I;!,f 4( k i,5VIC
<br />c' 1h E/j y Mi.t 4 of f Rc iyO$',4 L 5 WE4)F A OPOR c Vi0
<br />19,144k r",6Aj w.I"'(-,L:l PH/S
<br />1. The Planning Commission and the City Council on October 15,
<br />1974, and October 22, 1974, respectively, approved a vari-
<br />ance on the lot adjacent to mine (1410 Qohns Point Road,
<br />Parcel 1210, Section 9). The variance was approved condi-
<br />tioned on:
<br />a. No other variance but lot size and width be allowed.
<br />b. The present house be razed by August 1, 1975.
<br />7�ir> > > tfMkO
<br />15 ,v0r rR�E C. The barn be razed as soon as a new residence is con -
<br />strutted.
<br />�,r,t(tiby i , " I believe that as an adjacent property owner, I should have
<br />y been contacted by the Planning Commission and the City of
<br />Orono so that
<br />/76�y5 m y point of view could have been heard prior
<br />to the approval of th
<br />Fca 14crl"A' s variance. I believe that failure to
<br />;rem) notify me is a failure to provide me with equal protection
<br />N`"E' under the law and Zoning Ordinances of Orono. Moreover, I r 3 believe the fact that I was not contacted by the City of Orono
<br />S h, re, v. and/or the Planning Commission suggests a disregard for my
<br />F rights and viewpoint.
<br />v&L(.0e s
<br />5r�*r 70 2. Since the conditions of the approved variance were not met
<br />*e/` N 8 rRS (house not razed by August 1, 1975), thet, I think a question
<br />Ale, CC<Y/o6 exists as to whether or not the variance is still in exis-
<br />rl-feN tFN hence. I would think not. Also, can an owner get a variance
<br />4c ric,A; 1 and pass it on to d second owner?
<br />2- 3. I sensed the r,iood of the Planning Commission at the meeting I
<br />r1EE"T1uG attended at which Mr. Jack Rhode presented his plans was to
<br />approve the location of Mr. Rhode's pr3posed new home even if
<br />it violated both the Zoning Code and variances granted in Oc-
<br />�,•F,,cs " tC :2 �'''� ober, 1974, with respect to Ordinance 34.201. I fail to un-
<br />L)is - derstand why this "variance on variance" should be allowed
<br />Ua� and since it adversely affects my property value, I would,
<br />M A Y 1 therefore, have to object until such time as someore can demon-
<br />M ELrriAll, s. strate to me that a violation of the aforementioned ordinance
<br />rHF /lct'K'.'`'. 1S necessary.
<br />A`ri Alrov 4. There are six or more easements on or immediately adjacent to
<br />Mrt r7 my property. This results in families and their guess either
<br />driving over my property or being in the immediate vicinity.
<br />i,J,141 Should another house be erected on the lot next to mine, more
<br />
|