My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-21-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
06-21-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:32:47 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:32:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JULY 219 1997 <br />( #9 - #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick - Continued) <br />The 1.78 acre property has .4 acres of wetland to the rear. The house is located on an elevated <br />portion of the property which drops off to the wetlands. The property has a failing septic system. <br />The area is being considered for municipal sewer but at a cost of about $30,000 per unit. The <br />neighborhood has suggested the cost is prohibitive and sewer installation is not scheduled. <br />Gaffron said the drainfield replacement capability is limited due to the topography of the <br />property. <br />The information includes a letter of hardship. The main issue is with the side setback. The front <br />setback for the 2'x10' wide bump out is small. Staff feels the side setback request is extreme <br />from 30' to 5'. He noted that the 1/2 acre zoning, Orono's least restrictive district, requires 10' <br />setback. Gaffron compared the home's location to the neighboring properties. It has the least <br />separation between homes in the neighborhood and he feels the separation should be maintained <br />in the two -acre zoning. He did note that the property is limited for location of an addition. He <br />asked the Commission to consider the addition approval with respect to the neighboring property <br />location and asked for direction. <br />• Lindquist read the letter from neighbor, Tobin Dayton, into the record. The letter opposes the <br />proposal. <br />Headrick said they have looked at their options noting the restrictions. They are requesting a <br />kitchen/family room addition. They were informed that foundation work to locate the addition <br />elsewhere would be too expensive. They are also concerned with the aesthetics. Headrick <br />indicated that the kitchen is situated in this corner of the house. The proposed garage is as small <br />as possible for two cars. <br />During public comments, Tobin Dayton said he was present to answer any questions about the <br />letter noted. <br />Smith noted that adding onto the other side and enclosing the deck would not address the <br />kitchen. Headrick said the property drops off 12' at that location and fill is currently located <br />there. <br />Lindquist indicated that there are homes where no additions can be located. He saw a problem <br />with a 5' setback and felt the addition could not extend to that degree. Smith agreed. Headrick <br />responded that other properties in the neighborhood have received variances. <br />Schroeder said it would be less problematic to go forward towards the street with an addition. <br />• Headrick questioned whether a garage could be placed in front of the garage. Lindquist said it <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.