My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:31:00 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:30:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 <br />• <br />I - #2247 Wavne Hn1mPS - Continued) <br />Gaffron said the building is fairly high but will be tucked into the hill and meets the height <br />requirements. He indicated that the hardship with the size of the building for a 15' side <br />setback is created by the land owner. The issue of the unimproved street cannot be <br />resolved at this time. Gaffron said the oak tree is worth saving but the lilac bushes may <br />not be. He noted no neighbors are impacted by the proposed building. <br />Wayne Holmes said he prefers to build a boulder wall near the property line at the back <br />side of the proposed building. He would then pull the building forward 6' to 8', angle it 4' <br />on the back right corner, and cut 2' off the side resulting in a 10' back corner setback and <br />10'+ in the front. <br />Gaffron reported that the building inspector would not approve a boulder wall at a height <br />noted by applicant to be at 6' -8' high. He noted that it is difficult to build a boulder wall to <br />standards that would satisfy an engineer. The applicant said railroad ties with drain tile <br />was another suggestion. <br />Lindquist stated there are other alternatives for a wall which would be approved by the <br />engineer. <br />• Gaffron voiced support for the proposed location changes noting the 10' separation must <br />be maintained to the house. <br />• <br />There were no public comments. <br />Holmes informed the Commission that he does not intend to add a second driveway. It <br />would be grassed over and the building used for storage only primarily for his 27' motor <br />home, trailer, fishing boat, classic car, and other seasonal items. He has a pad along his <br />other garage that he uses for seasonal items. <br />Smith suggested expanding his existing garage instead. Holmes said his motor home <br />would not fit. <br />McMillan was informed that the applicant would not plow out the area by the building in <br />the winter time and would use the accessory pad for his snowmobiles. <br />Smith said she was originally concerned with the location of the building but supported the <br />changes proposed by the applicant. <br />The applicant indicated that the building size would be 22'x37.5' or 825 s.£ <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.