My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 4:15:25 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 4:10:51 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.
/
265
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 orono planning commission <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20. 1996 <br />(#6 - #2110 Joan Da>lon - Continued) <br />Lindquist asked Dayton if he would consider combining the three lots. Dayton said he <br />was willing to do so in order not to create the hardcover calculation as an issue He <br />would combine enough of the property in order to meet the hardcover requirement noting <br />his lack of intention in adding anv more hardcover. Mabusth intomied the applicant that <br />he should analyze the facts and hax e the property reviewed by his surveyor as he may not <br />wish to combine the lots noting the possible need to only combine two of the lotS <br />Schroeder emphasized the need to look at what is occurring in Lot 2, Dayton said he <br />would do what is necessary to e.xpedite the application Schroeder said any action could <br />be made as part of the recommendation by the Commission Dayton said he had no plans <br />to do anvthir.^ in Lot 1 and this area where the detached garage is located could be added <br />to Lot 2 Mabusth said a lot line rearrangement or a combination ot two lots could be <br />done .Mabusth confirmed that either a legal combination with lot 3 or a lot rearrangement <br />would solve the encroachment of the garage. <br />Schroeder said it was a matter of clarification asking what the code says about non- <br />structural versus structural Mabusth said the only time structural coverage comes into <br />play is when you are dealing with a property less than 1 99 acres in size This applies m all <br />zoning districts Schroeder inquired about an earlier comment regarding structural and <br />non-structural coverace in the 75’-250' setback. Mabusth said there are certain non- <br />structural improvements that are allowed when dealing with a natural environmental lake, <br />such as a grade level patio or landscape rock with underlayinent as long as there is no <br />excess hardcover in the 75-250’ Schroeder noted that the improvements were modest, <br />especially in light of a possible legal combination with Lot 1 Hawn said the impact was <br />minimal as there w as already hardcover underneath where the more permanent hardcover <br />would be placed <br />There were no public comments. <br />Hawn inquired if the applicant would obtain an after-the-tact permit tor the garage if the <br />lot line rearrangement was done. Dayton said he had asked the builder if he had obtained <br />a permit and added that he was willing to apply for an after-the-fact permit if need be. <br />Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2110 with the <br />understanding that a legal combination ot Lots 1 and 2 be done and a lot line <br />rearrangement between Lots 2 and 3 in order to solve the encroachment issue. This is to <br />be resolved prior to the application going betore the Council at their meeting of March 11. <br />An after-the-fact permit must also be obtained for the detached structure. Vote. Ayes 4, <br />Navs 0. <br />23
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.