Laserfiche WebLink
NfINUTESOFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Mondiy, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />Smith asked what the rationale for the “prow” was. <br />Ms. Welch stated that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. <br />Mabusth reminded the Commission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into <br />the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the applicant of back in <br />February. <br />Gaffron noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal. <br />Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the lake, however, this <br />measurement did not reflect the eaves, which would extend even further into the setback, as <br />would any steps. <br />Rahn asked if the glass “prow" was all windows and no doors. <br />Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. <br />Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him <br />as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. <br />Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the <br />substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and <br />recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very <br />strongly to the lakeshore setback. <br />Smith questioned whether the "prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the <br />approved setback area. <br />Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f. <br />PAGE 17