My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
02-19-03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2012 9:32:41 AM
Creation date
2/24/2012 9:32:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, February 19, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated that a 1' eave in the front and 1.3' eave in the back could be allowed due to <br /> the foundation. <br /> Mabusth indicated that she would like to see a compromise and suggested they settle on a <br /> 14" overhang to match the garage. <br /> Fritzler stated that he would prefer something closer to conformity. <br /> Given the cost of the change to gain a few inches, Bremer found it difficult to support <br /> denial of the variance and indicated that she would allow the 1 1/2' eaves. <br /> Rahn felt the eaves were closer to a 30" length. <br /> Berg asked at what point these problems were found. <br /> Mr. Weatherly pointed out that the inspector noticed the problems during a roof inspection. <br /> He reiterated that improvements to the original garage would take time. <br /> Mrs. Weatherly stated that, had they known the difficulties they've face, they never would <br /> have chosen the first builder and spent more than 80% of what was originally proposed. <br /> Mr. Weatherly stated that he and his neighbor currently share a bituminous path between <br /> their homes, pointing out that his neighbor's home falls within his 10' setback as well. <br /> Bremer reiterated that she would allow the eaves, due to the economics of the situation <br /> created by the difficulties the applicants withstood. <br /> Bottenberg asked what the hardship would be to warrant such a motion, noting that <br /> Council would want to have supporting hardship for the variances. <br /> Gaffron concurred, stating that, from a policy standpoint, staff needed to have a hardship <br /> identified to support the application. <br /> Mabusth stated that the hardship, which would allow the foundation to remain, would be <br /> the same one that supports the eaves to be left alone. <br /> Gaffron asked if it was the history and economics that the Commission based its decision. <br /> Berg stated that she was surprised that no stakes were placed or survey done when the <br /> home was rebuilt. <br /> PAGE 24 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.