My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 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.
/
373
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
` MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> trail sections to the north and south, but in Staf�s view it would be appropriate to acquire an easement at <br /> this point. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the City has been pretty consistent in collecting those trail easements. <br /> Thiesse noted there is a trail to the north and the Planning Commission would be amiss if they did not <br /> request an easement. <br /> Judy Rogosheske,Applicant, stated they have a more recent plat that does not show the line going <br /> through the driveway. <br /> Rogosheske stated she would like to speak to the 15 versus 30-foot setback. Rogosheske stated they do <br /> not want to have to apply for a variance and that they were originally told it was I S feet. Rogosheske <br /> stated it is her understanding the ordinance says if the structure is 1,000 square feet or less, it has a 15- <br /> foot setback. <br /> Curtis indicated that is correct. <br /> Judy Rogosheske stated their garage footprint is 1,008 square feet, which in round numbers would be <br /> 1,000 feet. Rogosheske noted it is not a home but a garage and that in her view the 15-foot setback would <br /> be appropriate. Rogosheske stated the other reason it would be appropriate is if the City requires 30 feet, <br /> they then would control the woodlands all along the south facing part of the new owner's lot. <br /> Rogosheske stated they do not have a view to the north, so they would have no issue with the 15-foot <br /> setback. Rogosheske stated in her view it would be far more important for the owner of the new lot to be <br /> able to control the existing trees in that area. <br /> Rogosheske stated they do not want to have to apply for a variance so they will submit to the 30-foot <br /> setback if that is what the Planning Commission determines appropriate, but that they would request the <br /> 15-foot setback. <br /> Rogosheske stated they are all far trails, and that when they originally purchased the property 33 years <br /> ago, they actually owned Old Crystal Bay Road because there was never an easement granted. <br /> Page 27 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.