Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 20, 2000 <br /> • (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) <br /> Stoddard noted if this application is denied,he would need to wait for six months before <br /> submitting a new application. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his application tabled. Hawn stated <br /> that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires. <br /> Mrs. Cable inquired whether they could still proceed with construction of the residence as <br /> originally proposed. <br /> Hawn stated they could proceed with construction in accordance with the building permit. Hawn <br /> stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until <br /> January at the earliest. <br /> Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the <br /> additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk. <br /> Hawn inquired whether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the <br /> driveway and sidewalk meeting the 25 percent hardcover limit and removal of the ice house. <br /> Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the sidewalk possibly consisting of stepping stones. <br /> Lindquist stated if this application is denied,they could still proceed under the building permit. <br /> Lindquist stated they need to stay within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the property. <br /> Smith commented if the ice house is removed,that would give the A pp licants an additional <br /> 96 feet of hardcover. <br /> Hawn reiterated the Planning Commission typically does not grant any variances to structural <br /> coverage or hardcover on new construction. Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their <br /> plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building official. <br /> Mrs. Cable inquired whether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they <br /> decide to keep it at this time. <br /> Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more than 25 percent of the <br /> foundation is replaced. <br /> Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of <br /> the structure,the repairs are not permitted. <br /> Gaffron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the time it became non-conforming. <br /> Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled. <br /> Cable stated they would like their application tabled. <br /> Lindquist rescinded his motion. <br /> • <br /> PAGE 11 <br />