10-21-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (#8 - #2173 Bennett Charles Downey - Continued) Gafiron said the hardcover will be under the 25% allowable at 24-24 5%. There are no other variances involved except for the garage and gazebo separation With the deck connection, the gazebo and garage have become an integral part of the system. There may be a need for a fire wall, however Gaflron said Staff recommends approval with the hardcover now under the 25® 'o in the 75- 250’ setback area with the removals as listed The gazebo application is after-the-fact and a building permit is required to ensure that the improvement is correctly built Gaffron said the after-the-fact fees should be waived as it was done by the previous owner. There were jio public comments Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2173 subject to Staff recommendations requiring hardcover be less than 25%. Downey asked if rocks w ere considered hardcov er if there w as no plastic underneath Gaffron said it was not as long as the pebbles have not been driven on or underlain with plastic or fabric The size of the rock was not a factor As a side note, Gaftfon said rip rap is also not included in hardcover Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#9) #2177 BOB MELAMED, 2005 SUGARWOOD DRIVE - REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT OF SUGAR WOODS COVENANT The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present, along with Landscape Architect, Kevin Norby. Mabusth reported that the application is the first for the current Planning Commission as it involves an issue with a driveway in the Sugar Woods Development. The City entered into the covenants in order to stand by the objectives that were set for the development. The purpose is to preserve trees, and the area in question is within a protected area. The covenant includes setback requirements, no removal of trees, no fill, and front access drives were not to exceed 20’ in width and were to be in a straight alignment The two adjoining property owners have been notified and no comments have been received. l.s