My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:15:41 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:21 AM
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.
/
264
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 />Mondayt June 17,2002 <br />6:30 o^clock p.m. <br />DRAFT <br />At the time, the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone allowed 485 s.f. unused. However, since the <br />house was completed, Bottenberg stated that the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. <br />The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey and the retaining walls did not show <br />up either. Additional retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway and as <br />edging that the applicant did not realize added to hardcover totals. <br />(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued) <br />Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of this application for hardcover. Even if the applicant <br />removed the old south driveway (as required to by the original permit), all rock/retaining walls except <br />one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%. If denied, the question <br />regarding the patio doors remains, as well as, the requirement to remove the unapproved hardcover. <br />Ms. Kosek stated that the driveway has not been enlarged from the original plan because it has always <br />been there. The driveway may not have shown up on the survey, but it has been there all along, it has not <br />been changed. With regard to the lakeside retaining walls, Ms. Kosek maintained that they also have <br />been there since they purchased the home, and no one said anything about them. Prior to August 2000, <br />there was an old existing deck. As she redesigned the home she moved the deck design out of the 75 <br />setback area in order to add it later utilizing the additional 400 s.f. of h.irdcover they believed to have had <br />remaining. <br />She stated that even in conversations with Weinberger, she was not aware that the retaining walls around <br />the driveway used up this precious square footage until she filed a permit for her deck. <br />Smith asked the applicant how they could help to make things right in order to obtain the variance. <br />Ms. Kosek maintained that what she has proposed currently would hardly constitute a deck, it is more <br />like two sidewalks with a spot for a chair, not even a table. She stated that originally two separate <br />building sites, they combined them to one in order to create a home. <br />There were no public comments. <br />PAGE 39 OF 42
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.