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 OFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />Smith asked Mr. Liberman if he could support the shift if the arborvitae remained, <br />• • <br />Mr. Liberman stated that he could support the shift if the arborvitae did remain. <br />Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent. <br />Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difficulty supporting the <br />eaves and “prow”. <br />Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the extending peak or “prow”, he felt the <br />front either had to be straight across or moved back further into the house. <br />Mabusth and Bremer felt the applicant needed to maintain a 53 ’ setback. <br />Rahn stated that he liked the new design. <br />Smith stated that she liked thf, ‘^;“ow” but wanted to see it at 53*. She questioned whether the <br />Commission could support them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated <br />that she could see that three of the Commissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. <br />Ms. VV'elch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin existing home <br />application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be <br />allowed any decking. <br />Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were <br />smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. hardcover. <br />Smith suggested the applicants table the application in order to redesign the plan, pulling back <br />the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53 ’ and coming back again. <br />PAGE 20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.