My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
03-18-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:34:33 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:31:05 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.
/
320
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 <br />Tuesday, February 19,2002 <br />6:30 o ’clock p.m. <br />(#02*2748 Richard and Nancy Marzan, Continued) <br />Alexander stated part of the hardship with the land is that a portion of the property is located within the <br />bluff line. <br />Marzan stated there is a very steep incline down to the lake, and that they like to store items relating to <br />their boat in the shed. <br />Hawn commented it probably is dangerous for people to be carrying things up and down that steep <br />embankment. Hawn stated the Planning Commission tends to be very consistent at not allowing <br />structures to be located within the 0-75' setback area. <br />Kluth inquired whether structures are allowed within a bluff zone. <br />Mabusth stated 4’ wide stairs are allowed as well as a lock box. Mabusth suggested the Applicant look <br />at making the shed into a conforming lock box. <br />Hawn noted there is not much land available that is flat in this area. <br />Rahn commented he w'ould not have a problem with the stairway or a 20 square foot lock box, but noted <br />that the Planning Commission has in the past required that structures be removed out of the 0-75' <br />setback area on new construction. <br />Marzan stated the dock starts where the stairway ends. Marzan expressed safety concerns if he is <br />required to build a lock box in that area, noting that the area is very steep and narrow. <br />Smith commented the shed is oversized compared to what is normally allowed in this area. <br />Hawn stated the land in this area is very limited. <br />Mabusth stated in her view safety issues need to be taken into consideration, and that she would be <br />agreeable to allowing the deck to remain in light of those safety concerns. <br />Kluth stated he agrees with Mabusth. Kluth indicated due to the extreme steepness of the bluff and the <br />angle ol the stairs, along with the condition of the structure, he would be willing to let the shed remain. <br />Smith stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission would not approve a structure of <br />this size. <br />Rahn stated the deck consists of 216 square feet. Rahn noted there is no permit on file for the shed. <br />Marzan stated if he is required to remove the deck and shed and rebuild a lock box. he would like to <br />excavate the hillside and repair the retaining wall. <br />Kluth commented the Planning Commission could allow this structure to remain, and if it if ever <br />replaced, it needs to be reduced in size. <br />Smith inquired whether the Applicant anticipates repainng the retaining wall in the near future. <br />PAGE 24 <br />Mb ___i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.