My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:18:24 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:50:00 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.
/
345
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
r <br />minutes OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, Aafost 19,2002 <br />0:30 e*clock pjn. <br />going beyond the 53’ setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier ^tplicati^ <br />Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus <br />existing home construction. <br />Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending caves. <br />Rahn maintained that the code did not read die way he felt it was being interpreted. <br />Gaffion reiterated that property owners may be aUowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover, <br />however, litUe lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions. <br />Smith stated that she c ould support shifting the residence, but could not accept the additional 64 <br />s.f. <br />Bob Liberman, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very <br />nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residence closer to the lot line would mean to <br />his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would <br />he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He <br />went on to question the possibUity of losing the arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the <br />two residences. He was concerned that they remain li order to maintain privacy. <br />Ms Welch sUted that she assumed that the wall of arborviue would remain to maintain pnvacy. <br />Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch’s behalf and could speak to the need <br />to keep the arborvitae. <br />Gaffion ilated that if the Commisiion W|>poits the teali(nment it would not he an ---------- <br />condition that the arborvitae remain to maintain the privacy and screening. <br />PAGE 19 <br />lanirni ii iini i J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.