My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-16-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
09-16-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:27:19 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 4:24:39 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.
/
283
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
1^^ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) <br />Bottenberg explained that the application was tabled at the July 15,2002 Planning Commission <br />meeting so the applicant could redesigi. the proposed three season porch. New plans have been <br />submitted to staff which reduce the three season porch in size from 12’ X 28’ to 8.02’ X 16.4’ <br />for an additional 136 s.f. in the 0-75’ setback zone. <br />Bottenberg stated that staff again recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition <br />being located within 75’ of the lakeshore. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building <br />already within 75’ of the lakeshore, variances to allow additional hardcover or structure is no? <br />warranted. <br />Smith asked if the decrease in the size of the deck and removal of shed were i vilected in the <br />numbers. <br />Hawn pointed out that the shed is located mostly in the ROW. <br />Melin stated that she hoped she met the requirements and was under the allowable 1,500 s.f <br />hardcover, if not she questioned what else to do <br />Mabusth asked if she could remove any hardcover within the 75-.250’ s.f setba».!-. <br />Hawn questioned whether the screened porch could rep’ace the side deck, <br />Smith stated that the lot size was acceptable now at 1,397 s.f <br />Rahn stated that the proposed deck was stiil encroaching into the average lakeshore setback <br />approximately 4’. <br />Mabusth questioned what happened to the discussion from the last meeting with regard to <br />bringing the deck around to the side. The Commission had found that somewhat more <br />acceptable at the time. <br />Hawn reiterated that the Commission did not want to see anvlhing additional added to the 0-75’ <br />setback. She stated that she did not see adequate hardship to support the request other than a <br />small lot. She asked for more information in order to prove to her there was sufficient hardship. <br />Melin stated that she w’ould consider going to the side, but was limited elsewhere by railroad, <br />ROW, and the vacated neighboring lot. <br />PAGE 9 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.