Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 17,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />DRAFT <br />Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd <br />driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls. <br />Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their <br />landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design <br />to the cdnstruction, and it takes time to do this on your own. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been <br />told that no permit was required for retaining walls under 3* in height, but never was sK’ told that they <br />counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls were <br />removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were <br />removed. <br />Smith asked about the patio doors. <br />Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75’ setback, w hich w ould have worked <br />with the e.xcess 400 s.f. they had allowed if it weren ’t now used up. <br />Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance. <br />(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Cootioued) <br />Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28% hardcover variance she was <br />requesting with a conforming lot, when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance <br />to allow 37% hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers wtere a nonconforming <br />lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks. <br />Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting rid of an old shed within <br />the 75’ setback, removing the stone borders in front, and any nonessential retaining walls, although the <br />majority are serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway. <br />Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought <br />the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied. <br />PAGE 40 OF 42