My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-21-2001 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
05-21-2001 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 2:25:27 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 2:24:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 20,2000 <br />(02636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) <br />Stoddard noted if this application is denied, he utwld need to wait for six months before <br />submitting a new application. <br />l b%vn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his applieation tabled. Hawti stated <br />that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires. <br />Mrs. Cible inquired whether they could still proceed with construction of the residence as <br />originally proposed <br />liawn stated they could proceed w ith construction in accordance with the building permit. Hawn <br />stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until <br />January at the earliest. <br />Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the <br />additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk. <br />Hawn inquired w hether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the <br />driveway and sidewalk meeting the 25 percent hardco^or limit and removal of the ice house. <br />Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the side\%alk possibly consisting of stepping stones. <br />Lindquist stated if this application is denied, they could still proceed under the b , . wit. <br />Lindquist staled they need to sta\' within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the <br />Smith conimcnted if the ice house is removed, that would give the Applicants ^n additional <br />96 feet of hardcover. <br />Hawn reiteiated the Planning Commission tspically does not grant any variances to structural <br />coverage or hardcover on new construction Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their <br />plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building otHcial. <br />Mrs. Cable inquired w hether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they <br />decide to keep it at this time. <br />Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more tlian 25 percent of the <br />foundation is replaced. <br />Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of <br />the structure, the repairs are not permitted. <br />Gaffron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the lime it became non-conforming. <br />Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled. <br />Cable stated they would like their application tabled. <br />Lindquist rescinded his motion. <br />PAGE 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.