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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />going beyond the 53’ setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier application. <br />Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus <br />existing home construction. <br />Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending eaves. <br />Rahn maintained that the code did not read the way he felt it was being interpreted. <br />Gaffron reiterated that property owners may be allowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover, <br />however, little lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions. <br />Smith stated that she could support shifting the residence, but could not accept the additional 64 <br />s.f. <br />Bob Liberman, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very <br />nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residenc- closer to the lot line would mean to <br />his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would <br />he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He <br />went on to question the possibility of losing the arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the <br />two residences. He was concerned that they ren:ain in order to maintain privacy. <br />Ms Welch stated that she assumed that the wall of arborvitae would remain to maintain privacy. <br />Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch’s behalf and could speak to the need <br />to keep the arborvitae. <br />Gaflron stated that if the Commission supports the realignment it would not be an unreasonable <br />condition that the arborvitae remain to maintain the privacy and screening, <br />PAGE 19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.