My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
11-24-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:54 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 3:12:40 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.
/
458
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, November 17.2003 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />Acting Chair thanked the q^licants for working with the City and Planning Department <br />staff to resolve their differences. <br />Ms. Newkirk acknowledged that it had been a terrible experience. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2953, <br />Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, granting both a hardcover <br />variance in the 0-75* aone of 1.4% consbting of a staircase to the lake and the 75-250* <br />zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, subject to the <br />removal of all landscape fabric and plastic liners. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />(#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST, <br />AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:23 - 8:00 P.M.) <br />David and Tara Gross, the applicants, were present. <br />Foth explained that the applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance in order to allow <br />a 2380 s.f sport court within 6’ of the side lot line where 30’ is required <br />Foth provided the following background, in June 2003, the applicants were notified by a <br />letter from Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was <br />required for their newly constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified <br />that the sport court did not meet the required 30’ side setback as it was placed less than 6* <br />from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in <br />raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height <br />PAGE 15 of 56 <br />» <****■
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.