My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
04-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 2:30:19 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 2:30:19 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 /> Monday,April 15,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, Continued) <br /> Weinberger stated it had been. <br /> Gaffron noted the City does allow accessory structures in a rear yard or a side yard and they do not need <br /> to meet the principal structure setbacks unless they are oversized. Gaffron noted the oversized <br /> ordinance was only put into effect approximately ten years ago. <br /> Hawn commented she has a concern since this is new construction and the precedent that may be set by <br /> granting the variances. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the Applicant would be agreeable to a deadline in which the buildings be <br /> removed. <br /> Mr. Sweezo stated he does not know how long the barn would remain,noting he has maintained his <br /> buildings in the past. Sweezo noted the pole barn was also constructed prior to when he purchased the <br /> property. <br /> Mrs. Sweezo commented they would like to construct a new residence since it would be easier to <br /> maintain and require less work. <br /> Smith inquired whether the new residence could be built in the location of the two other buildings, with <br /> the barn remaining. <br /> Berg stated she does not like to design the layout of this lot,noting that they do have legitimate reasons <br /> for the proposed location. Berg stated in her view the proposed location of the new residence is fine. <br /> Kluth indicated he is in agreement with Berg. Kluth stated the buildings were constructed prior to the <br /> adoption of the new ordinances and have been grandfathered in. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the residence could be relocated eight feet to alleviate the side setback. <br /> Sweezo stated they would be required to dig a new well if the house is moved further back. <br /> Rahn noted there is very little room for movement of the house. <br /> Hawn stated she still have a concern with the oversized structures. <br /> Smith commented in her view the residence could be relocated slightly,which would lessen the <br /> encroachments into the setbacks. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the application should be tabled to see if there are other options. <br /> Sweezo indicated they have looked at a number of possible options and this is the best possible location <br /> for the new residence. Sweezo stated he could dig a well and gain a few feet,but noted when the house <br /> was originally built, it was over 100 feet from the road. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.