02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WcdMt^ay, Jnwiry 22,2003 0:30 0*d0ck p.M. (•0^20M SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, CMMiaacd) Gtffron kkiKified 6 issues for considenlion by the Planning Commission and indicated that stafTuouId recommend approval of the lot area variance. On the other hand, GafTron stated that staff u-ould recommend denial of the side setback variance and approval of the front yard setback vanance relatis-e to the alternate plan. He continued, that staff would recommend the new home be connected to municipal sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system at comrietion of construction and that the applicant be required to have the wetland delineated prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure it meets the minimum wetland setback. Although he had submitted an alternate plan, Gorr suted that he would prefer to retain the 4-stall garage. With regard to hardship, Gorr maintained that LR-1A is an inappropriate zoning district for small lots, not to mention, the limitation posed by wetland encroachment on this propen>’. As he would be building over the existing foundation with no room for a basement, storage would be limited, therefore Gorr requested he be granted a 4-stall garage to offset this limitation. Adding storage behind the garage might encroach into the pool area. Giair Smith suggested, relative to the garage, to merely construct a deeper garage for storage. Oaffron reminded the Commission that the applicant would need to maintain a 10’ setback between the pool and structure. Gorr maintained that building a deeper garage would cut into the limited usable yard and cost more to redo the foundation. Chair Smith pointed out that not having room to store your belongings was not considered an acceptable hardship. Neighbor Lenny Dayton, across Heritage Dnve to the south, asked how high the two story home would be. Gaffron indicated that the home met height standards at a proposed height of 27*. Dayton inquired whether the size of the home was of issue, since the footpnni appears to be much smaller than the proposed construction. Chair Smith stated that the size of the home did not seem to be in question. Gaffron noted that the home will be significantly larger than the original 36X4S. Additional spaces of 18X30 w ith bonus room above the garage and 40X 23 would be constructed. Da>lon asked w hat the proposed setback to Heritage would be. Gaffron indicated that the setback would be measured 10* back from the cul-de-sac. and that the applicant was asking for a variance to be 28’ instead of 50 ’ from the setback. W’hile Chair Smith staled that she saw no problem allowing the lot area variance, she felt there was inadequate hardship displayed to support the side scdiack. PAGE IS of 29