My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
10-20-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:40:54 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:39:24 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.
/
267
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. ScpCembcr 15,2003 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(«S #03-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, CoaliMcd) <br />Chair Smith stated that difTerent zoning requirements apply to dirfercnt things. <br />Rahn staled that, typically, the Commission has approved reconstruction of c.xisting decks <br />in like size and kind. While he understood the additional 33* deck plan, he suggested the <br />deck be slid dotsn 2'-3* to make the door more accessible. He felt comfortable aIlov\ing <br />the applicants to redesign the deck to fall within the same square footage as the original <br />deck, acknowledging that the building code will mandate a landing at the top of the stairs. <br />Ms. Haney indicated that it would be their desire to replace the deck in kind, in order to <br />cause the least amount of disturbance, if they w ere not going to be granted their requesL <br />The applicants felt the deck could not be slid down far enough to offset the effect of both <br />sets of doors. <br />Hawn indicated that she would like the applicants to be allowed to redesign the current <br />deck square footage to irKorporate an interior stairway and safer access situation. <br />Chair Smith summarized by stating that the applicanu may replace their existing deck w ith <br />a deck of no more square footage than currently exists. <br />Mr. Harvey indicated that they would make an attempt to slide the deck over I* to I I ?*. <br />Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about the shed. <br />Gaffron suggested that the applicants be allowed to keep their shed in its current location, <br />no closer to the road than the current home, in a location that has sen ed them w ell, until <br />such time that it should need to be replaced. <br />Will Piper, resident, commented that moving or sliding the deck over can impact the <br />integrity of the current slab and footings below. <br />Hawn recapped, noting that w hile the hardcover cannot increase, neither can the deck <br />encroach any further into the 0-75* setback than it currently docs. <br />Hawn moved, hlabaslb seconded, to recommend approval of Applicalioa #03-2940, <br />Scot and Lbsa Harvey, 1199 Elmwood Aveaae, graallag the applicaaU the abilitv to <br />replace the cxbtiag deck with a deck of equal square footage, resulting in no <br />hardcover Increase or additional encroachment into the 0-7S* setback, in addition, <br />aMowiag the applicants to keep their shed in its enrreat locatioo until which point it <br />should need to be replaced and a variance application Hied at that lime. VOTE: Ayes <br />7, Nays 0. <br />PAGE 13 of 25
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.