My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
10-27-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:21 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 3:05:23 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
447
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 20,2003 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m.T)' <br />Scott Standa, the Applicant, was present. <br />Gaffron explained that the applicant was requesting after-the-fact hardcover and setback <br />variances to allow the reconstruction of a rotten deck located at the shoreline attached to an <br />existing accessory building. 'Variances required include: <br />1. Structure within 0-75' setoack zone, extending out over the shoreline <br />(cantilevered 2-3’ past the OHWL). <br />2. Structure encroaching within 1 foot of side lot line. <br />3. Hardcover in 0-75' zone of 16.24% (no changes proposed). <br />4. Encroachment of average lakeshore setback <br />Gaffton noted that the deck that was replaced was attached to a 12‘x22* accessory building <br />located 5’ from the shoreline and nearly abutting the side lot line. The accessory building <br />has been there for many years and has apparently been maintained in relatively good <br />condition. <br />GafTron asked the Planning Commission to consider 5 key issues: <br />1. Would the Planning Commission have recommended approval for the replacement <br />of this deck had the application been made before the fact? <br />2. Does Planning Commission a^ee with staff that the 1992 photo provided by <br />applicant casts doubt as to whether this deck was 8' deep prior to its replacement? <br />3. The property has excessive hardcover in both the 0-75’ and 75-250' zones. Is there <br />any hardcover on the site that should be considered for removal if the application is <br />approved? The surveyor identified 235 s.f of landscape areas lined with plastic or fabric <br />that are not included in the hardcover calculations and would be subject to removal if the <br />application is approved... <br />Page 4 of 41 <br />J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.