My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:34:57 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:30:47 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.
/
395
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
I <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />'Fucsday, February 19, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Alexander slated part of ihe hardship wilh the land is thal a portion of the propert> is located uiihm the <br />bluff line <br />Marzan slated there is a vcr>’ sleep incline down lo the lake, and that they like lo store items relating to <br />their boat in the shed <br />Hawn commented il probably is dangerous for people lo be carrxing ihitigs up and down ihal sleep <br />embankment Hawn stated the Planning ('ommission tends to \er\ consistent at not allowing structures <br />to be located within the 0-75* setback area. <br />Kluth inquired whether structures are allowed within a bluff/one <br />Mabustli stated 4' wide stairs are allowed as well as a lock box Mabustli suggested Uie Applieanl look <br />at making the shed into a conforming IcKk box <br />Hawn noted there is not much land available that is flat in this area <br />Rahn commented he would not ha\e a problem with the stairwav or a 20 square fool IcKk box. but noted <br />thal the Planning Commission has m the past required that structures be removed out of the 0-75* <br />setback area on new construction <br />Mar/nn staled the doek starts where the stairway ends Mar/an expressed safety concerns if he is <br />required lo build a lock box m that area, noting that the area is \er> steep and narrow <br />Smith commented the shed is oversized compared lo what is normally allowed m this area <br />Hawn staled the land in this area is \er\ limited <br />Mabusih stated in her view safelv issues need to be taken into consideration, and that she would be <br />agreeable lo allowing the deck lo remain m light of those safety concerns <br />Kluth staled he agrees with Mabustli Kluth indicated due lo the extreme steepness of the blufl'and the <br />angle of the stairs, along with the condition of the structure, he would be willing to let the shed remain <br />Smith staled ixpically on new construction the Planning Commission would not approve a structure of <br />this size <br />PAGE 32
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.