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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday. SqMonber IS, 2003 <br />6:00 o’clock pm <br />(#10 #03.2M3 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT.ConttaMcd) <br />GalTxon stated that the substandard lot allows l.S00s.f. of cover, whereas, the applicants <br />have proposed 1,083 s.f., which is over by about 383 s.f. He suggested that one option <br />might be for the applicants to create a design that would incorporate a tuck under garage or <br />second story on the home. <br />Ms. Labalt feh a tw'o story home would be out of character and stick out like a sore thumb, <br />versus adding out which would be more attractive. <br />Rahn stated that the lot is allowed 1 .500 s.f of structural cover, w hich is virtually where it <br />stands currently, and encouraged the applicants to reconfigure the home to maintain l,5(X) <br />s.f. <br />Mr. Labalt asked if the si/e of the home was about as big as it could get. <br />Mabusih suggested they consider a second story addition and/or tuck under garage for their <br />design and work with sufT to achieve their goals. <br />Chav Smith indicated that they could table for redesign or vote for denial and send them to <br />Council. <br />Mr. Labalt asked that they be sent forw ard to City Council w ith a recommendation. <br />Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive, who shares the driveway access with the Labaltt, <br />stated that he would like his 10' driveway easement back. He maintained that the Labalts <br />had placed stakes along the drivew ay narrow ing up his access and making almost <br />impassable for delivery trucks etc. <br />Mr. Ubalt stated that he placed the stakes along his property line in an effort to reclaim his <br />property that has been overdriven for j^ars. He suted that the neighbor has been <br />encroaching further and further onto his property and the only way for him to reclaim what <br />is rightfully his was to place the stakes on the property line. <br />Gaffron asked if the residents held surveys of their property rights and suggested they <br />contact their own prospective law yers to determine the property line. <br />Labalt stated that he had a recent survey in his possession that backed up his claim. <br />Finney stated that he did not have a sur\ ey. however, stated that the trees prohibit him oh <br />one side from driving further over. He asked if the gravel driveway was grandfathered in <br />one way or another w ith or without a sur\ ey. <br />PAGE 18 of 25
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.