Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 18, 2007 7:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #07-3293 GEORGE STICKNEY FOR BRUCE PADDOCK, Continued) significant home anywhere else in Orono on a smaller lot, as the comparisons within the packet show. Kroger stated that the plan seemed to be designed to be as close to the 75' zone as possible. He questioned whether the garage could be placed back further on the site near where the existing pool is situated currently. Stickney stated that they were considering putting in rain gardens near the pool area once it is removed. With regard to the garage placement, Stickney stated that the neighbors had expressed their desire that the home, and its amenities, be kept low profile, closer to ground level, so that it does not appear overpowering from the lake or street. He pointed out that they were preserving the bluff and improving the current situation, in which the home encroaches significantly into the 0-7 5' zone. Gaffron stated that, it would be fair to say, that the current proposal does not reflect the finished site plan or grading plan. He pointed out that if the garage was added where proposed the applicant would be filling in a low area. He indicated that the applicant was looking for more direction at this time and whether the Commission felt this to be a reasonable plan or if there were ways he could mitigate the hardcover. Charles Hanesworth, Charles Cud Homes, stated that the applicant would be generating a tremendous amount of fill from excavating the basement for the house; therefore, the amount of fill necessary to bring in might not be as high as estimated. Zullo stated that she did not believe there was a hardship for this lot, as it was part of a large piece of property prior to the division, which the applicant created and imposed upon himself. As the hardship was made or created by the applicant by adding the roads and cul-de-sacs for the adjoining lots, Zullo felt the applicant must work within the guidelines of this newly formed lot. She stated that she would vote to deny the applications request. Chair Kempf questioned the need for so much driveway hardcover. He felt there was a tremendous amount of unnecessary hardcover. While the point lot is a hardship, Kempf felt the applicant could make reasonable use with less hardcover. Kroger concurred. Winer stated that she believed the hardcover was too high, but that she did not have enough information to make an informed decision. She suggested the applicant do more soil testing and stated that she would not be surprised if the grading work proved to be more than the applicant recognized. Stickney stated that the lot has good soil and that he would bring the proof to attest to it at an upcoming meeting. Chair Kempf asked if the Commission had more direction for the applicants. PAGE 5 of8