Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — AUGUST 12, 1991 <br />(##10) ZONING FILE $#1665 — THOMAS MCCARTHY <br />1424 BALDUR PARK RD <br />VARIANCES <br />Gerhardson reviewed the application and Planning <br />Commission's recommendation. <br />Mabusth presented the applicant's plans as presented to the <br />Planning Commission noting that as originally presented, there <br />was a walkway with an overhang. She explained that the Planning "" <br />Commission had n.o problem with the repair or replacement of the <br />existing deck, but felt the addition was too ambitious and the <br />applicant had not proved acceptable hardships. The original <br />Scheme A reduces the percentage of hardcover by 8% in the 75 -250' <br />zone. <br />Michial Mularoni, applicant's contractor, explained his <br />design process and how he arrived at the different variations. <br />He felt that by adding the second garage as depicted in Scheme A, <br />with overhang walkway to house in the middle to minimize the <br />rafter height and thereby reduce the visual impact. He reviewed <br />one of their concerns which was the covered walk and the need to <br />provide access to the principal structure for emergency purposes. <br />Candace Rowlette clarified that the Planning Commission <br />originally tabled the applicant's request because there was only <br />one proposal which was inadequate. Applicant then came back and <br />asked to reopen the request, and it ended up being denied. <br />Jabbour declared that he was at that last Planning <br />Commission and noted that one Commissioner's reason for denial <br />was that non — structural hardcover was being replaced with <br />structural hardcover. <br />Mabusth reiterated that there is a total reduction in <br />percentages of hardcover of 7.9 %. <br />Jabbour felt that the garage could be added to the original <br />garage; centerirng the garage door between the old and new, and. <br />felt -that the rafters-wouldn't necessarily have to be extremely <br />high. <br />Goetten noted that the lot is 50' wide at the road, <br />therefore the garage and proposed addition brings it up to 31'4" <br />which covers a major portion of the lot. The large tree next to <br />the garage covers a large portion of the remaining setback. She <br />noted that she could not approve the proposal as is. <br />Jabbour remarked that a double garage is typically 24' wide <br />and the scheme proposed is 28'. <br />Callahan remarked that the hardship of having only a one car <br />garage is not enough to approve the proposal.- <br />