My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 12:15:12 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 12:10:59 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.
/
401
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
V <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock pan. <br />to get the previous property owner to remove it since the 1980’s. The lot coverage by structures <br />was 2,000 s.^ (2,512 s.f. with the old deck) and is proposed to be 2,571 s.f., an increase of 59 s.f. <br />to what previously existed. <br />Mr. Schmidt stated that he was unfamiliar with the existence and history of the lakeside shed and <br />could not commit for Mr. Cloud to tearing it down. <br />Chair Smith suggested that Mr. Schmidt convey the Commission’s thoughts to Mr. Cloud and <br />they table the application. <br />Fritzler asked if the other outbuildings would be allowed to remain. <br />Gaffron questioned whether a 10’X12’ shed by the driveway was to remain. <br />Mabusth stated that it adds to the lot coverage. <br />Hawn stated that, in her opinion, the proposed conservatory would be something that would be <br />obtrusive to the neighbors. <br />Having visited the site, Rahn indicated that the footings that are there dictate the size of the deck. <br />He believed that the previous deck size had been overstated and would recommend it be replaced <br />by something similar to the original. <br />Gaffron suggested reviewing the assessor’s records to see if there was a measurement of the old <br />deck recorded there. <br />With regard to staffs recommendations. Chair Smitn agreed that, item #3, the shed located by <br />the lake be removed. <br />inquired as to whether the shed at the rear of the property near the driveway should be <br />PAGE 21 of 27
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.