Laserfiche WebLink
MLNUTESOFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 16,2001 <br />behind the garage. Blumentritt responded that by angling the garage, more open area is gained with <br />only a comer closer to the neighbor. <br />Lindquist noted there were two setbacks, the front and side yard setbacks. The side yard setback is <br />proposed at 12'. The neighbor to the other side has a setback of appro.iimately 31'. Lindquist stated <br />he would look at a minimum of a 30* side setback for each neighbor and the applicant would need to <br />stay within those setbacks in his design. <br />Hawn agreed w ith Lindquist noting that a 50* setback is required. A setback proposal at 12.T <br />requires a variance which is too great <br />Menge asked what the required setbacks are for a one or tsvo acre zone. Gaffron responded that the <br />one acre zone requires 35' front and rear with 10' on the sides, and the nvo acre zone is SO' front and <br />rear with 30' on the sides. Menge noted that his lot is a one acre lot and next door is 2 'A. Hawn <br />commented Utat his request is a radical departure from the zoning standards. <br />Smith commented that she had the same concerns as Hawn and Lindquist. <br />Stoddard stated that he may be a little more lenient and may allow up to 25' for the side setbacks. <br />Mabusth stated that she had the same concerns and suggested tabling the application with some <br />direction to the applicants. None of the Commissioners were concerned w ith the front or rear <br />setbacks. The side setback is the major issue, especially with the concerns expressed by the neighbor <br />to the north. <br />Hawn commented that tipping the garage may help some but was concerned with the impact of <br />headlights on the neighbors. <br />Mabusth commented that using portions of the existing garage to enlarge the garage area w ould be a <br />good option to pursue. <br />PAGE?