Laserfiche WebLink
minutes OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, Angosl 19,2003 <br />0:30 o’clock pjn. <br />Smith isked what the rationale for the “prow** was. "" ------------------ <br />Ms. Welch suted that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. <br />Mabusth reminded the Conunission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into <br />the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the qjplicant of back in <br />Febniaiy. <br />Gaf&on noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal <br />Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the i^ce, however, this <br />measurement did not reflect the eaves, which would extend even fur'jier into the setback, as <br />would any steps. <br />Rahn asked if the glass “prow” was all windows and no doors. <br />Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. <br />Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him <br />as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. <br />Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the <br />substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and <br />recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very <br />strongly to the lakeshore setback. <br />Smith questioned whether the “prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the <br />approved setback area. <br />Mabusth asked how die Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f.