My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-18-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
08-18-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:41:31 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:38:56 PM
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.
/
331
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday. July 21.2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOI^IPSON. CoBtlnacd) <br />if Ihey wished to include the pool as part of the application. He encouraged the Commission to <br />give the applicant direction with rcganl to the oversize accessory structure created by combining <br />the two buildings and greenhouse. <br />Rahn stated that it appeared the applicants would exceed the 2.000 s.f. accessory* limit, as ucll as <br />the 1,000 s.f. accessory size per building limit by attaching the greenhouse between the two. <br />GafTron pointed out that there was no information pertaining to the dimensions of the proposed <br />greenhouse. He stated that, if the greenhouse were a small structure, the totals might fall under <br />2,000 s.f.; however, it may still exceed the 1.000 individual limit when combined with one of the <br />other structures. <br />Thompson stated that, es’cntually, they would like to use a portion of the new garage as a pool <br />house. <br />While swimming pools are not considered part of the accessory structures, GafTron pointed out <br />that they must still meet setbacks. <br />Thompson asked if variances were given for pool setbacks. <br />Hawn believed a converted pool house with plumbing brings new issues to li^t, as docs the <br />need for a conditional use permit. She maintained that more information w*as necessary in order <br />for the Commission to vote on this application. <br />Although the garage would eventually be converted to a pool house, Thompson indicated that <br />their current use would be for storage. <br />Berg reiterated that, since the Commission lacks the necessary^ information to attain a clear <br />understanding of what the applicant wants, the Commission could not vote on the application <br />this evening. <br />GafTron suggested the Commission provide the applicant w ith further direction of w nat is needed <br />for application prior to the next meeting with regard to plumbing, pool location and size, and <br />whether the Commission could be persuaded to grant a side yard setback. <br />Derg added that dimensions for the greenhouse were necessary as well. <br />Fritzler pointed out that accessory structures arc required to be 10’ apart if not attached, and if <br />attached, they cannot exceed the oversize classification. <br />Thompson stated that she believed they were below the 2,000 s.f limit with the buildings <br />attached. <br />PAGE 24 of 37
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.