Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1586-BURANEN CONTINUED <br />Mr. Buranen replied, "I don't feel it is necessary. If I <br />need to back out during a busy time of day, I back up into the <br />yard and position the car so I can pull straight ahead. In the <br />evening hours I have never had any problems." <br />Thera were no public comments regarding this application and <br />the Pubi. : Hearing was closed. <br />Cohen stated that as long as the applicant has indicated <br />that he has no problem, he sees no need for a turn-around. He <br />said, "It appears that Mr. Buranen recognizes the potential <br />problems and has gone so far as to remove the brush from the end <br />of the driveway." <br />Hanson concurred with Cohen. He said, "Mr. Buranen has the <br />expertise to handle this type of vehicle. I don't believe a turn <br />around is needed." <br />Bellows asked Mabusth whether City staff has reviewed the <br />safety aspect of this. <br />Mabusth replied, "No." <br />Bellows suggested that the Public Works Director be asked to <br />look at the site prior to Council's review of this application. <br />It v/as moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to recommend <br />approval of after-the-fact side yard setback Variance for an <br />addition to a principal structure, subject to staff <br />recommendations and the inspection of the driveway by City staff <br />to determine the safety status of this condition. Motion, <br />Ayes-6. Nays-0. Motion carried. <br />#1587 RUBY L. SIFORD <br />96 HACKBERRY HILL <br />AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 7:17 P.M. TO 7:25 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Mrs. Siford and her son, Bill Siford. were present. <br />Mabusth suggested that Mrs. Siford be given an opportunity <br />to explain how this situation arose. <br />Bill Siford said, "V/e were under the impression that our <br />contractor had applied for the permits. We later learned that <br />was not the case. The contractor claimed that the City inspector <br />had stopped by and told him the deck had to be five feet from the <br />garage. That is how he constructed the deck. I talked with the <br />Building Inspector today. He stated that he did not tell our <br />- 5 -