Laserfiche WebLink
1. <br />■r^ <br />if: <br />fe- <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1991 <br />ZONING FILE #1676 - CONT. <br />Chair Kelley suggested that the neighboring property owners <br />should be renotified of the continuation of the public hearing. <br />(#5) ZONING FILE #1608 JAMES R. HARTZELL <br />2967 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING <br />7:16 - 7:25 P.M. <br />James R. Hart;:ell was present for this application. <br />Gaffron explained that this Is a request for variances to <br />lot coverage, average setback and to hardcover. The property <br />owns three contiguous parcels: the house In question, lot <br />and house next door, and lot with tennis court on the other <br />adjacent side. The hardcover calculations have been done just <br />for the property with the proposed Improvements. Existing <br />hardcover in the 75~250' zone Is 23.8%: proposed is 35.9%. The <br />proposed Improvements extends 25' past the average lakeshore <br />setback line. Existing lot coverage Is 8.3%; proposed Is 15.7%; <br />Chair Kelley questioned what the applicant's hardships are. <br />Applicant's Designer was present and explained the main <br />hardship is hardcover calculations. He explained the size of the <br />pool and patio have been kept to a minimum and felt that the <br />visual Impact was also kept to a minimum. He explained the total <br />run-off for all lots was at a minimum. He noted that the <br />neighbor to the left has no objection and there is vegetation on <br />both sides to cover. <br />wasBellows asked what the percentage cf lot coverage <br />the lot wit’n the tennis court. She also asked how the lot <br />allowed to be separated with no principal residence. <br />for <br />Gaffron explained the tennis court was there before the <br />subdivision and obviously there was a variance granted. The lot <br />was over the 25% hardcover limit. <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Cohen explained he has no problem with the average setback <br />variance but felt other variances were a very serious problem. <br />Moos and Schroeder concurred with Cohen. <br />Johnson agreed with Cohen and stated he disagreed with <br />applicant as this is not a minimal impact on property as It Is <br />not a minimal sized pool or patio. <br />Applicant's designer explained they would be willing to <br />compromise on the patio size and perhaps remove some driveway <br />hardcover. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to table <br />Application #1608, James R. Hartzell of 2987 Casco Point Road, to <br />allow the applicant to revise his plans. Ayes 6, nays 0.