Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR fiE£T1NG or T._.. ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBnR 2,, 1977 Page 11 <br />Mr. Cargill co nted that he is not in favo DOCK PROPOSAL <br />disturbing the pre. nt natural marshla o create 500 North Arm Drive <br />duck ponds. (Continued) <br />Paurus moved, Butler sect , to instruct staff <br />to request the Depar o atural Resources to <br />respond to the by Novembe , 1977, to review <br />the enviro tal impact of dredg duck ponds, and <br />inst ed staff to redraft the reso tion. Notion, <br />Avtrs- (4) - Nays (0). <br />flavor Van Nest reviewed previous Council action VARIANCE <br />concerning Mr. Jack Rhode's application for a 1410 Bohn's Point Road <br />variance to the lot area and width for his proposed #210 <br />residence at 1410 Bohn's Point Road. The flavor Jack Rhode <br />reviewed the exhibits that have been presented I <br />which are: ` <br />1. Exhibit A - Original subdivision <br />2. Exhibit B - Building permit issued to Fred <br />Rogers and John Gullickson on June 26, 1968, <br />for new home at 3125 North Shore Drive. This <br />is the current Becker residence. <br />3. Exhibit C - Survey indicating proposed lagoon <br />setback as approximately 58 ft. <br />4. Exhibit D - Council minutes of August 13, 1973, <br />granting approval of house location for Duane <br />Hoff at 3135 North Shore Drive, lot immediately <br />east of Becker property. <br />(Note on Exhibits E 6 F, lagoon setback is 60') <br />5. Exhibit E - Building permit for Hoff at 3135 North <br />Shore Drive (lagoon setback 60') <br />6. Exhibit F - Only site sketch on file for house <br />at 3135 North Shore Drive. Note - not a certi..ied <br />survey and does not indicate proposed location. <br />7. Exhibit G - 1960 aerial of area. (Note - no docks <br />on subject lot). <br />8. Exhibit H - 1975 aerial of area. (Note - no docks <br />on subject lot). <br />9. Exhibit I - Tax record for subject lot (Rhode's <br />property). Note - June 30, 1969, property was <br />assessed for residence. Evidently, platted as <br />residential site and not a- 3n outlot. <br />Findings of fact have been pr. ed which are <br />documented and are part of the record. The Citv <br />Council should address themselves to: <br />1. Is this a buildable lot? <br />2. If buildable, should existing barn be allowed <br />to remain? <br />3. Review all setback requirements <br />4. Should multi -use dock be allowed? <br />5. Final resolution should be drafted for Council <br />review at their next meeting. (Continued) <br />