My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-26-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:46:57 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:39:03 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.
/
499
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 <br />(#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) <br />Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road, agreed with the removal of the garage, noting it to be an <br />eyesore and haTardous. He felt the problems with parking and trespassing were good reasons to <br />allow the fence to be located closer to the road. Floyd said the road has a blind curve in that area. <br />He felt the distance of the fence from the road as proposed is a good idea, and the existing fence <br />should be removed. <br />Floyd questioned the relationship between this property and the 20' strip of land. He indicated that <br />it was his feeling the subdivision and improvements should not be addressed until this relationship <br />has been solved. He does not feel permits should be issued without the determination. <br />Jerry McCourtney smd his property is in sight of the proposed garage, and he supports the <br />improvements proposed. <br />Hawn said if the fence and garage received approval, both would be subject to the legal approval of <br />the subdivision with respect to the two lots. If pending legal action goes against it, she felt the <br />applicant should be prepared to remove them. The combination with Brooks property must be <br />solved. <br />Brooks responded that the property to the north is not in dispute. He said he has no doubt about the <br />ownership. The question is with the 20' strip of land. Brooks said he would remove the fence if he <br />had to in the future. <br />Lindquist was informed by Gaffron that no garage would be allowed in this location if proposed <br />today. Lindquist noted the garage is hazardous but questioned approving it. <br />Schroeder inquired about the proximity to the water. Gaffron said the garage had an issue with <br />wetland separation. The lake is more than 75' away. <br />Stoddard questioned if the garage could be built without the 10' front setback from the building to <br />enable the 26' wetland separation. Gaffron noted the distances and said it could not be done. <br />McMillan asked if the accessory structure was grandfathered in. The garage would be less than 26' <br />from the wetland, subject to the same ordinances and would be non-conforming. Lindquist noted <br />the problem with wetland on one side of the garage and the road on the other. <br />Brooks said his hardship is the house located on an island with no additional room to place the <br />garage. There is a main garage. He indicated a lakeside structure is important for storage. Lindquist <br />informed him that the buildings as proposed could not be built new today.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.