08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (»7 «03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN. ConUnncd) of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the aAcr- the-facl variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required w clland setbacks by retaining w alls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or w hether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined w ith fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. Chair Smith questioned whether the unique cirL umsianccs surrounding this application could be ermsidered hardships. Gaffron stated that, while the applicant should have done some further investigation before purchasing the property, there is some debate over w hose fault the overages of hardcover could be blamed. Although certainly unique. GafDron acknowledged he did not know if they constitute hardships by definition. Chair Smith poir>*ed out that the original sqiprovals allowed 30*/o hardcover. During the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to get as close to 35°/o hardcover as possible. She questioned whether further removals could be made to reach 35%. Cooper commented that construction occurred over a four >trar penod and that the current applicant has gone to great lengths to reduce hardcover substantially and still have good access to the proi>eity. Hawn asked how the retaining walls w ould be changed. Cooper stated that the walls would be pulled onto the properly; howev ’er. as allowed at the last meeting, they would not meet a 5* setback. Gaffron stated that minimal reductions would be gained with these removals and that the remaining pavement is necessary to ensure adequate turning radius and maneuverability. He pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the patios. Hawn and Bremer felt the applicant had done a good job faced with a difficult situation. Fritzler stated that he would insist the removals go further to meet the 35% as originally directed at the last meeting. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she saw no hardship to support the need for two driveways. PAGE 7 of 37 ---