11-15-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. Noian asked about the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke e.xplained it was for solar heating of the pool. Peterson asked about the fence to the back of the property shown on the survey that indicates it is 2’ over the lot line. Bakke stated he would move it within his line although the neighbor said there was no problem to leave it where it was. Peterson thought the deck should be approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply w-ith the lot line. The ether fence had already been removed. Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of hardcover. Gaffron explained that in the 250-500 ’ zone from the lake, only 30% of the properi} is allowed to be in hard surface which includes driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, landtcaped areas underlain with plastic or fabric, etc. He did not think there was any way to reduce hardcover other than removing some of the driveway or the existing decks 32% hardcover probably e.xisted prior to the deck addition, now 35% e.xisis. Bakke stated the turnaround was not necessary as they were able to back out. The shed currently occupies that space but will be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed. Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding alter-the-fact variances for decks. Peterson felt that, in this case, the deck construction is so old it is difficult to deal with but otherwise these after-the-fact variances should be dealt with very carefully. Smith did not want it to appear that as a violation becomes older, it may be overlooked. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1879 subject to the removal of the shed, removal of the backup apron in the driveway as drawn and moving the fence so it no longer encroaches the neighboring property. Ayes 5, nays 1. Planning Commission members agreed there should be an after-the-fact variance application fee paid and after-the-fact building permit tee. Smith referred to an earlier application (Sieffs) which was tabled because the Commission did not feel they could approve extensive decking. Although the Bakke decking is older, she did not feel that time should make a difference in the approach to the application. Nolan felt there were differences with the Siett application such as: n ii. > 1 . The Sieffs had very intense hardcover/decking - probably twice that as Bakke s.