08-15-1983 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

33.Page 4 ( designated within servation Easement way for Watertown (Off Watertown Road by the Public Works 00 for residential of the possibility Lvision of property :wo acre minimum lot iS brought to the (5) , Nays (0) . resented Mr. Roth. tion that was tabled le noted that the ipplicant specific July 19, 1982, which fly. She noted that tall garage, single ght of way. nt of the house if it be moved 5-7' back mg out onto Baldur >le but that it would itlands. She noted ission in 1982 to the stay away from the close to the road. her garages in the structure side. He d by those garages but when you have a main structure then He noted that Baldur i. . • >V, -•> hM' -'7 \ , :1^11% -i mMir MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION nKfcTinu ur uuux xu,— ^ ^ ROTH (CONT)Mabusth noted that there already was an existing garage there. Goetten noted that her direction at that time in 19^ was to keep the garage on the house side of the street. McDonald noted that the wetlands are very fragile to build by and asked Mr. Fisk i f Mr . Roth would consider putting the the garage on the house side. Mr. Fisk noted that Mr. Roth wanted it on the other side and that thet e probably wasn* t enough room on the house side of the street. Goetten noted that Mr. Roth was going by the direction of the majority opinion of the Planning Commission but it was not one she shared in. She noted that she still has the same concern that she did in 1982. McDonald would - ike to ask Mr. Roth if he would put it on the house side. Callahan asked if they moved the garage on the main structure side, would they need a variance? Mabusth stated that they would because of the 30' setback requirement. Callahan asked if the hardcover situation would be better if the hardcover in question is over where the house is and if it is closer to the wetlands as it now is. Mabusth stated that it probably would be Sime noted that there is an existing structure there now approximately the size proposed now, and it would seem that they have not changes anything that is existing by approving his request in this location, that he is just replacing one garage with another and that it would remove an eyesore. Mabusth noted that the proposed garage is a little larger than the existing one. Adams stated that since the applicant has complied with the original recommendation of the Planning Commission and that they should approve it, but to allow a little more flexibility by maybe moving the qarage a few feet back. But that he would also invite the applicant to consider building a garage on the house side. He stated that this way the Planning Commission would be giving the applicant the flexibility to go ahead and do what the Planning Commission stated at an earlier time. ■ i f. ■■ ■ Itei MINUTES ROTH (CO