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 PLANN�NG COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> From a practical standpoint, the existing building pad is 40 feet on a 100-foot lot. Hiller stated from a <br /> practical and marketability standpoint, it does not make sense to remodel the existing home since it is <br /> very old and in disrepair. <br /> Leskinen asked what the practical difficulty is for granting the side yard setback. <br /> Hiller stated the existing building pad would allow a 40-foot wide home, which would be incredibly <br /> skinny relatively to the side. Hiller stated virtually all the new homes in this area have three and four-stall <br /> garages. Hiller stated a 3-stall garage is approximately 36 feet wide and they would end up with all <br /> garage, which is not very saleable and in concert with the new construction in the area. Hiller stated in <br /> his view that is a practical difficulty and that he would like to construct something that is consistent far <br /> the area. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:23 p.m. <br /> Robert Berrett, 1085 Brown Road South, stated he is located directly north of the applicant's property. <br /> Berrett stated the applicant mentioned he would like to make the house aesthetically pleasing, and under <br /> the City's criteria, it says that a variance may not be issued to satisfy the economic or aesthetic desires of <br /> the application. <br /> Berrett noted there was never a sign put out in the front regarding the project and that the applicant has <br /> only spoken with himself. Berrett stated in his view they are trying to get this application snuck through. <br /> Berrett stated the biggest issue he has with the project is the variance to the 30-foot setback, especially if <br /> you assume there will be 30-foot high walls on that side. Berrett noted there can be no plantings on that <br /> side that conceal this structure and that it would look directly into his daughter's bedroom. Berrett stated <br /> in his view it is a hardship to him since he will have to do plantings to protect his privacy. Berrett stated <br /> if the applicant is held to the 30 feet, he would be able to plant on his side. <br /> Berrett stated in his view it is important to understand that the applicant just purchased this property a <br /> month ago. The setbacks were understood at that point, and to say there is a new hardship involved is not <br /> true. Berrett stated in the end he feels there is adequate space to construct the same square footage of <br /> Page 62 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.