Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
� , , . <br /> � REGULAR i1EFTIN� OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEI�ER 26 , 1977 Page 8 <br /> � Planning Commission P4eeting - September 19, 1977 VARIANCE <br /> 3465 Shoreline Drive <br /> Recor►r,iended approval due to location of existing (Continued) <br /> • pylon on edge of parring area and to assurances <br /> that sign will be moved if City should ever so <br /> � request. <br /> � Council Pdeeting - September 26 , 1977 <br /> � Butler moved, r7assengale seconded, to approve the <br /> request for a variance for Pic A Pop, 3465 Shore- <br /> � line Drive, per the Planning Commission recommendations <br /> � of September 19, 1977. Motion, Ayes (3) - Pdays (0) . <br /> � <br /> P�Ir. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & 7oning VARIANCE <br /> � Administrator, entered into the record the follow- 1015 Lind�n Lane <br /> ing r.�emo concerning a lot area and width variance �301 <br /> � for Glenn Upton, 1015 Linden Lane, dated August 25 , Glenn Upton <br /> . 1977, which states : <br /> � The applicant is requesting a variance for construction <br /> of a new home on this property. The pr_operty consists <br /> � of three lots combined into one tax parcel. The <br /> lot was previously occupied by a home which burned <br /> � down several years ago. The lot is sewered. <br /> • There is an existing non-conforming garage on the <br /> �property which lacks sufficient setback distance <br /> to the road and the north property line. <br /> � Mr. Upton has submitted two plans for consideration. <br /> His "preferred plan" locates the house near to the <br /> � lake between the two adjacent homes. This is on <br /> the slope to the lake at the approximate location <br /> � of the previous house. The lot is narrowest at <br /> • this point, but the proposed house meets all the <br /> required setbacks. <br /> � The alternate plan is for your consideration should <br /> � the first plan be unacceptable. In this proposed <br /> location, the slope is much flatter and the lot is <br /> � wider so as to afford less crowding of the structures. <br /> Here, too, all required setbacks �aould be rlet. <br /> � <br /> • Variances : Lot area required: 43, 560 sq, ft. ; Actual - 31, 110 sq. ft. <br /> Variance - 12 , 450 sq. ft. = 29% <br /> � Lot width required: 140 ft. ; Actual A - 54 ft. <br /> Variance - 86 ft. = 61� <br /> � Actual B - 87 ft. <br /> � Variance - 53 ft. � 380 <br /> � <br /> � (Continued) <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br />