11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. restncbons. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work conducted on their property. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court, which the applicants signed, placing the responsibility for obtaining permits upon the property owner. In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to remove the 2380 s.f. sport court. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport court and applied for an after-the-fact variance. A letter from Planning Director, Mike Gaffron, dated September 10, 2003, informed the applicants that their variance application was incomplete pending submittal of several items. Staff did not want the issue to be overlooked and sent a letter to the applicants requiring submittal of the materials by November 1,2003 or removal of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action by the City. At that time, Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into compliance with City Codes. On October 31” Staff called the applicants because the materials had not been submitted and notified them that the materials were to be submitted by 10 am Monday, November 3"*. There was a misunderstanding regarding who was to be responsible for submitting each of the required items which was causing the delay in material submittal. Foth stated that, typically, a 30’ side yard setback is required; the current setback of the sport court is between 3.5’ and 6’ from the eastern side property line. The applicants are asking the Planning Commission to allow a structure 2380.s.f., which is 1380 s.f. larger than the threshold which triggers the increased setback of 30’, to be set back less than 6’ from the property line. Additionally, the setback requested by the applicants is significantly less than would be required for even just a small storage shed. The applicants have proposed additional landscaping screening consisting of arborvitoe between the sport court and the eastern property line. In addition, Foth noted that the garden was located by the surveyor approximately 3-4 ” over the property line and should be located entirely PAGE 16 of 56