Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 20,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Gundlach indicated if the building is 750 square feet, the setback is 10 feet from the side or rear; if it is <br />between 750 and 1000, it has to be 15 feet; and if it is in excess of 1000 square feet, it has to meet <br />principal stmeture setbacks. <br />Jurgens stated two structures could be constructed rather than one large one, which would meet the <br />setbacks and would not encroach upon the mound system. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the <br />north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. <br />Gaffron noted there is a 50-foot separation between the lot line and the railroad easement. <br />Keinpf inquired whether there is any plan to construct a tiail in that area, <br />Gaffron stated he is not aware of any plans to construct a trail in this area by cither the City or the <br />homeowners association. <br />Leslie stated in his opinion it is a dangerous precedent to judge properties based on how something <br />looks when the code is very specific on what is allowed and what is not allowed. Leslie commented <br />several options have been discussed that would allow the applicant to have the storage he is requesting. <br />Bremer stated she is not opposed to the location of the structure, but that the size of the building is <br />excessive, Bremer stated what the code is trying to prevent in part is to have a property that appears to <br />have two houses on it. Bremer indicated the intent of the code is to maintain the rural integrity of the <br />property, and that there may be other residents that would like to construct a similar size structure on <br />lots that do not have the significant number of trees on it as this lot docs. Bremer commented the <br />proposed location makes the most sense for this lot but that the size should be reduced. <br />Leslie stated two buildings would accommodate what the applicant is proposing to store in the shed and <br />that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Leslie stated in his view the building can be reduced, which <br />would reduce the setbacks and conqjly with the code. <br />Bremer stated it might be better if the tests on the alternate septic site were available before a final <br />decision is made on this application. <br />PAGE 16 <br />1