10-21-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (#7) #2172 GERALD AND NANCY BLOMS, 4195 FOREST LAKE DRIVE VARIANCF - PUBLIC HEARING S:4S-9;00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the applicant previously received an area variance for residential construction on what had been a vacant lot, and consistent with the surroundir .; lots. The applicant now seeks a lot coverage variance for the construction of a 12'xl4-l/2' deck resulting in a 1.1% increase Structural coverage is currently 15 7^4, where 15% is allowed Elevations w“re shown The deck addition is to the existing deck and maintains the 52' setback The 12' extension is towards the street side The foundation plan was showTi Smith asked if a wood patio was to be added since there is a concrete pad now The applicant said the concrete has cracked Mabusth said the grade level deck is acceptable and not included in the structural coverage. The upper level deck is included as it will have a railing and is at a 6' grade Nancy Bloms said she was surprised to find a zoning code for structural coverage. She said her property is consistent with those of the neighborhood. Bloms also asked that her application be presented at the September 23 Council meeting. Stoddard asked for clarification on the lower deck. Mabusth said the structure is included in the hardcover calculations, which presents no problem as the property allows 30% and is below that figure There were no public comments Hawn acknowledged that there would be no impact on the neighbors but noted that the coverage was over the limit Hawn said it was her inclination to ask that the records note no additional structure would be allowed on the property She also voiced concern that such notations are not passed along to future owners. Bloms said she would not want such a limit to be noted as it might limit the value of the property. Bloms felt a 15% structural coverage on 3/4 acre was minimal and unrealistic. Hawn responded that when limits are not set, the neighbors keep adding new structure. She noted the ordinance is there to help maintain space in keeping with .an open space philosophy Schroeder said Bloms remarks have some merit as coverage is less than some of the neighboring properties. He was concerned wnth noting on record a limitation as the Commission is unable to bind future bodies and was unenforceable.