02-13-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1995 (#5 - #1987 Lany Pillar - Continued) The AppGcant was present Mabusth reported that the application involves a 10\15' addition to the rear of a home that was installed without a building permit The applicant’s intention was to repar sections of the foundation of the three-season porch, which also provides an interior access to the basemem area, and found he needed to replace foundations, the wood frame walls and roof The addition was rebuilt within the original envelope Applicant advised that he has been working on this project for a fiew months. The inspectors issued a stop work order, and applicant was advised of the need for a building permit and survey The survey revealed the porch w^ 47" from the side lot line The house is 4 ’ from said line. There is a 14’ unimproved alley which separates applicant’s from the property to the north If the alleyway was vacated, this property would receive the benefit of the eventual 14’ wide alley. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #1987 to include a penalty fee for not having acquired a building permit and that addition be completed within 90 days. Ayes 7, Nays 0. It was noted that the shed on the property was not found on the survey and b located on the property line. The vacating of the alley would solve this problem. (#6) #1988 KENNETH J, SEVERINSON» 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:40-8:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the application is for a setback va ance required for rcinstallation of new sections, 6-T in height, of a privacy fence adjacent to the southwest channel side and street side of the property. The original fence continued approximately 8'farther along the channel than the new fence The Applicant said he was unaware of the for a permit. It was discovered after 78% of the fence had been replaced. The fence b in the 0-75’ zone and is not considered hardcover. The Applicant said the noise level of the area without the privacy fence is very Itmd and b part of his hardship statement. Peterson and Smith were concerned with approving a fence here and setting a precedent for others to follow as a reason to g:>‘ant a future request for fencing. There were no public comments. I