PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 MPaMS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994 ( #7) #1918 JAMES K. AND JULIE ANN LYNCH- DANIELS, 1225 ORONO OAKS DRIVE - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) constructing a driveway, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Bill Bonner stated he was the designer and builder and was present representing the applicants. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing, and no one present wished to address the Commission. Bonner stated that they had submitted a new survey for completion of the driveway started some years ago, and he noted that they are moving a portion of the original fill which was misplaced, back within the existing easement boundary. He stated they propose to put in a new culvert and move more fill in so that the fill will carry the weight of the traffic. He introduced Max Norton, the landscape architect, who concurred with this. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1918 Conditional Use Permit for James K. and Julie Ann Lynch - Daniels at 1225 Orono Oaks Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ayes 6, nays 0. ( #8) #1919 TY BUCEY, 2677 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING - RENOTIFICATION Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Gaffron reviewed the staff report. Chair Schroeder read a petition which had been submitted by neighborhood residents in support of the application and a letter from the neighbor directly to the north, Dr. Carl Shutts, into the record. Chair Schroeder noted that the drainage issue appeared to have been resolved and the applicant has reduced the height of the house and garage to address the concerns of adjacent residents. Rowlette commented that it appeared that the boat house needed some repairs made and she stated that if the cost of those repairs exceeded 75% of the value of the boat house, then it would have to be removed. Gaffron reviewed the ordinance requirements relating to structures within the 0 -75 foot setback area and how they applied to boat houses. Nolan stated that while there was some reduction in height, he was concerned about the building footprint area. Mr. Bucey responded that they have added a deck and made a connection between the house and garage, but essentially the footprint is the same as the original house. Nolan stated he felt the house was too large for the lot. Chair Schroeder stated that the house had been lowered significantly which would help with the sight lines from the adjacent residential properties. Peterson commented he 5