Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 17,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Although she could appreciate their concern about visibility, Acting Chair Mabusth stated <br />that, had they come in prior to construction, they would have been asked to test for septic <br />and move it closer to meet the 30’ setback. <br />Gross acknowledged that, while they could try to reduce the size of the court to fit within <br />the City Code, at great expense, he questioned how the additional 4’ would eliminate the <br />impact that noise and children might have. <br />Bremer asked what the sport court would have to be reduced by to allow it to remain 10' <br />from the property line. <br />Gaffron indicated that accessory structures of 0-750 s.f. require a 10’ setback, from 750- <br />1500 s.f. require a 15’ setback and so on. <br />Hawn stoted that this is the second time she had heard of this sort of setback issue being <br />created by sport courts and asked why this continues. <br />Bremer pointed out that the contract with Sport Court clearly states it is the homeowner’s <br />responsibility to pull the permits. <br />Gross stated that, having never been in a position where the contractor hadn ’t pulled the <br />permit, they simply had overlooked that aspect of the contract in the excitement of getting <br />their sport court. He reiterated that they never would have walked willingly into this <br />predicament and noted that his proposed options placed a pretty significant impart on him <br />and his family. <br />Fritzler maintained that the applicants must reduce the size of their sport court and keep <br />any fencing within limits as well. <br />PAGE 19 of 56 <br />iiirmriiiT