My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#1254 - CUP/variances - 1981
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Casco Point Road
>
2480 Casco Point Road - 20-117-23-21-0037
>
Resolutions
>
#1254 - CUP/variances - 1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:52:17 PM
Creation date
3/4/2016 2:10:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2480
Street Name
Casco Point
Street Type
Road
Address
2480 Casco Point Road
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
2011723210037
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
View images
View plain text
. . <br /> � <br /> Clt� of ORON4 <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � Np, 1254 <br /> � � � � <br /> 19 . A guest house use is a change from the original <br /> non-conforming use of the boat hause. <br /> 2U. The existing structure could not meet the setback <br /> standards required by the conditional use permit <br /> for a guest house. <br /> 21. Applicant applied for a canditional use permit to <br /> relocate a guest house on his three-acre site, but <br /> withdrew the application an January 19, 1981 when <br /> he realized the required average lakeshore setback <br /> for the relocated structure would interfere with an <br /> addition proposed for the main house. In that applicatior, <br /> the second story would have been removed and the remaining <br /> boat house capped with a deck. <br /> 22 . The proposed addition of a three-seasaned porch <br /> within the restricted lakeshore setback area is <br /> additional hardcover as prohibited by S�ction 34 . 202, <br /> and zs a violation of the 75 ft. lakeshore setback <br /> regulations of Section 34. 201. <br /> 23 . Applicant argues that the building permit issued by <br /> the City on May 7, 1971 must have included the request <br /> to build a second story even though the building permit <br /> clearly does not provide such a right and that in 1971, <br /> he would have had a right to build an upper story, such <br /> arguments have no merit for one or more of the following <br /> reasons: <br /> ' a) A building permit has not been provided for upper <br /> story. <br /> b) Building permit No. 2495 was written for only <br /> $500 .00 . <br /> c) Cost of construction material for a two-story <br /> structure in 1971 would have been more than $500 .00. <br /> d) There are no architectural plans on file to <br /> substantiate a two-story structure. <br /> e) A conditional use permit would have been required <br /> in 1971 and ther� is none on record. <br /> f) A mechanical permit would have been required in <br /> 1971 for all work done on furnace. <br /> PAGE � OF 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.