Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 <br />• <br />( #7) #2172 GERALD AND NANCY BLOMS, 4195 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - <br />VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:48 -9:00 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Mabusth reported that the applicant previously received an area variance for residential <br />construction on what had been a vacant lot, and consistent with the surrounding lots. The <br />applicant now seeks a lot coverage variance for the construction of a 12'x14 -1/2' deck <br />resulting in a 1.1 % increase. Structural coverage is currently 15.7 %, where 15% is <br />allowed. Elevations were shown. The deck addition is to the existing deck and maintains <br />the 32' setback. The 12' extension is towards the street side. The foundation plan was <br />shown. <br />Smith asked if a wood patio was to be added since there is a concrete pad now. The <br />applicant said the concrete has cracked. Mabusth said the grade level deck is acceptable <br />and not included in the structural coverage. The upper level deck is included as it will <br />have a railing and is at a 6' grade. <br />Nancy Bloms said she was surprised to find a zoning code for structural coverage. She <br />• said her property is consistent with those of the neighborhood. Bloms also asked that her <br />application be presented at the September 23 Council meeting. <br />Stoddard asked for clarification on the lower deck. Mabusth said the structure is included <br />in the hardcover calculations, which presents no problem as the property allows 30% and <br />is below that figure. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Hawn acknowledged that there would be no impact on the neighbors but noted that the <br />coverage was over the limit. Hawn said it was her inclination to ask that the records note <br />no additional structure would be allowed on the property. She also voiced concern that <br />such notations are not passed along to future owners. Bloms said she would not want <br />such a limit to be noted as it might limit the value of the property. Bloms felt a 15% <br />structural coverage on 3/4 acre was minimal and unrealistic. Hawn responded that when <br />limits are not set, the neighbors keep adding new structure. She noted the ordinance is <br />there to help maintain space in keeping with an open space philosophy. <br />Schroeder said Bloms remarks have some merit as coverage is less than some of the <br />neighboring properties. He was concerned with noting on record a limitation as the <br />Commission is unable to bind future bodies and was unenforceable. <br />13 <br />