My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-20-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
05-20-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:02:02 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:59:47 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.
/
293
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 />MIMTES OF THE <br />ORONU PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 15,2002 <br />6:30 O'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2762 Timolhy and Mary Swce^o, Coniinucd) <br />Weinberger staled it had been. <br />Gaffron noted the City does allow accessory structures in a rear >*ard or a side >-ard and they do not need <br />to meet the principal structure setbacks unless they arc oversized. Gaffron noted the oversized <br />ordinance was only put into effect approximately ten years ago. <br />Hawn commented she has a concern since this is new construction and the precedent that nuy he set by <br />granting the variances. <br />Mabusth inquired w hether the Applicant would be agreeable to a deadline in which the buildings be <br />removed. <br />Mr. Swee/o stated he does not know how long the bam would remain, noting he has maintained his <br />buildings in the past. Sweezo tuMed the pole bam wns also constructed poor to when he purchased the <br />property. <br />Mrs. Sw'cczo commented they would like to construct a new residence since it would be easier to <br />maintain and require less work. <br />Smith inquired whether the new residence could be built m the UKation of the two other buildings, with <br />the bam remaining. <br />Berg staled she does not like to design the layout of this lot, noting that they do ha\e legitimate reast>ns <br />for the proposed location. Berg stated in her view the proposed location of the new residence is fine. <br />Kluth indicated he is in agreement with Berg. Kluth stated the buildings were constructed prior to the <br />adoption of the new ordinances and have been grandfathered in <br />Kahn inquired w hether the residence could be relocated eight feet to alleviate the side setback. <br />Sweezo stated they w ould be required to dig a new w ell if the house is moved further back. <br />Rahn noted there is very little room for mosement of the house <br />Hawn stated she still have a concern w ith the o\-ersized strucnires. <br />Smith commented in her view the residence could be rcl«Kaied slightly, which would lessen the <br />encroachments into the setbacks <br />Mabusth inquired w hether the application should be tabled to see if there are other options. <br />Sw eezo indicated they have looked at a number of possible options and this is the best possible location <br />fur the new residence. Sweeze stated he could dig a well and gam a few feet, but noted when the house <br />was onginally buili, it was over 100 feet from the road. <br />PAGES
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.