Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 18,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The existing hardcover level is 42.9 percent. The addition is proposed to be constructed over an existing <br /> patio. No new hardcover is proposed. Due to the change in the nature of the nonconforming hardcover, <br /> an expansion from non-building to building, a hardcover variance is required. <br /> If the variance is approved,adjustments to the building plans are necessary, specifically to the gutters, <br /> roof, eaves and foundation,which the architect has indicated could be accomplished. <br /> Staff does not support the variance reducing the rear yard variance from 7.4 feet to O.1-feet. If the <br /> Planning Commission supports the variance, Staff would add the following to the record: The proposed <br /> setback of 1.2 inches does not account for the need of the homeowners' access around the home for <br /> maintenance without trespassing on the HCRRA property. Permitting requirements should be complied <br /> with. <br /> Staff finds the hardcover variance to be reasonable considering the practical difficulties affecting the <br /> property. <br /> The Commission should review the plans regarding the rear yard setback. The applicant did receive a <br /> supportive comment from the neighbor to the east. <br /> The aerial photo reflects a play structure that is no longer there but the shed is still there. <br /> Curtis displayed the first floor and second floor house plans and elevation views. The plans would be <br /> adjusted in conformance with the architect's notes and building official's comments. <br /> Thiesse asked if the applicant will obtain an easement or a permit for the grading. <br /> Curtis indicated the applicant will need to obtain that permitting but she is not aware if an easement is <br /> required. <br /> Thiesse noted Staff has recommended personal access around the building. <br /> Curtis stated that was to alleviate Staffs concerns with maintaining the structure. Curtis noted this is not <br /> the only tight setback that exists in this area. <br /> Libby asked for clarification on the location of the shed. <br /> Curtis indicated it is located entirely within the Rail Authority's property and the shed is not in a highly <br /> observed area. There are also a number of other encroachments on the Rail Authority's property by other <br /> property owners. <br /> Landgraver noted the neighbors are essentially in the same position with the tight setbacks. <br /> Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area. <br /> Landgraver commented those tight setbacks are critical to his interpretation of this request. <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br />