Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 <br />• <br />(#4 - #2253 Rick Rice - Continued) <br />Smith said she did not see any hardship for the deck. Van Zomeren indicated that the <br />building oad and house location on the lot would be the hardship. Smith felt the partv <br />who built the home should have realized the potential problem. Smith said approval <br />cannot be gained for all locations where an addition makes sense and sees no compelling <br />hardship. <br />McMillan asked if the home was built prior to the setback requirements. Rice said the <br />home was built in 1951. Van Zomeren said there would have been less of a problem at <br />that time with the deck location. <br />Stoddard said he would support the deck request noting the applicant was trying to take <br />advantage of the lake views and each application is reviewed case by case_ <br />Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2255 for <br />construction of a deck requiring rear and side yard setback variances. Vote: Ayes 6, <br />Nays 1, Smith. <br />( #5) #2264 JANET C. I£)ERNAN9 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - <br />PUBLIC HEARING 8:36 -8:56 P.M. <br />• The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailin g were noted. <br />• <br />The Applicant was present along with representative, Alan Christy. <br />Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the July Planning Commission meeting <br />for review of the condition of the foundation and use of existing oortions of the house. <br />Gaffron indicated that the building inspectors have determined from the plans that 400/9 of <br />the existing house will remain, resulting in a final product that is 20% old house and 80% <br />new house. He said the code does not specify a minimum percentage of use of existing <br />structure in order that it be considered as an addition/remodel rather than as total <br />reconstruction. Gaffron informed the Commission that the applicant was approved one <br />vear ago for additions to the existing house. Changes in the vlans for a total replacement <br />would require further review and approval due to the substandard lot not meeting area and <br />width requirements. <br />12 <br />