My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-21-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
06-21-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2023 4:18:00 PM
Creation date
10/26/2023 4:11:36 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.
/
285
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD JUNE 21, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1823 - CONT. <br />Peterson reported they just approved a subdivision for the Wirtjes <br />property to the rear of the Rossing home, and stressed that outside <br />storage would become a problem when that lot is developed. <br />Rowiette understood there would not be large commercial vehicles <br />located on the property. <br />Rossing clarified she Is allowed one per the ordinance, and one- <br />ton vans do not count as a commercial vehicle. <br />Berg asked how many people live in the home and how many vehicles <br />are on the property. <br />Rossing replied there are currently 4 adults in the home, but soon <br />to be 6, and they will have 5 to 6 vehicles. <br />Mabusth asked about the number of boats and the size. <br />Rossing replied typically it is only one boat - a 15’ runabout. <br />Nolan asked about the storage of construction material outside. <br />Rossing reported her son is in the construction business, but <br />typically only parks his truck on tne property and construction <br />material is stored off site. <br />Mabusth indicated the business would require approval of a Home <br />Occupation License. <br />Rowiette expressed concern that there is not enough parking on the <br />property for 6 vehicles, and the need to appease the neighbors’ <br />concerns about the aopearance of the property. <br />Lindquist stated he is not comfortable having any outside storage <br />hidden behind a privacy f^^ce. <br />Mabusth reiterated the Issue here Is not the variance for the deck <br />addition, but rather the matter of a violation of allowed exterior <br />storage in a residential yard. The applicant does not need a <br />variance for construction of a second accessory structure and <br />installation of the fence. <br />Lindquist stated he has no problem witit tne deck addition. He asked <br />their options regarding tne storage. <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.