My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-2000 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
10-16-2000 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2023 12:19:41 PM
Creation date
3/21/2023 12:13:13 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.
/
336
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 />SEPTEMBER 18,2000 <br />(#2610 Jerome Hall, Continued) <br />2. The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. <br />3. The deck would not encroach closer to the creek than the pre-existing deck. <br />4. The deck is located on an area of the property that is generally flat and does not slope <br />directly to the creek. This condition allows for surface water to infiltrate into the ground <br />better than property with varying topography. <br />Gronberg indicated the creek is not pristine pond but rather acts as a holding pond prior to <br />reaching the dam. Gronberg stated the creek does meander from time to time and it is difficult <br />to determine the exact pathway of the creek. <br />Hall indicated he was not at home at the time the deck was removed and replaced. Hall stated <br />his builder apparently applied for the building permit afterwards. <br />Smith inquired whether the homeowner expected the contractor to follow the proper procedures <br />for construction of the deck. <br />Hall stated he did. <br />Smith inquired whether an afler-the-fact fee would apply in this case. <br />Weinberger stated an after-the-fact fee to his knowledge has not been applied to this application. <br />Weinberger stated he was not aware this was an after-the-fact permit until after he had viewed <br />the site. <br />HawTi stated had the Applicant come in prior to construction, he would have been told that he <br />could replace the existing deck but could not add any additional feet within the 75 foot setback. <br />Hawn stated if the additional deck is allowed, it could set a precedent. <br />Smith stated she would like to see an after-the-fact fee applied in this case. <br />Lindquist commented there is no hardship in this case to allow the additional six feet. <br />Smith stated in other similar situations the Applicants have been requested to reduce the size of <br />the deck. <br />Hawn inquired why the Applicant expanded the deck. <br />Hall stated he expanded the deck to make it nicer. <br />Smith inquired whether some other hardcover could be removed elsewhere in this area. <br />Hall stated there is not. <br />Hawn reiterated that the Planning Commission would not have allowed the additional six feet <br />PAGE 23
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.