06-17-2002 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued) Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls. Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design to the construction, and it takes time to do this on your own. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been told that no permit was required for retaining walls under 4' in height,but never was she told that they counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls were removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were removed. Smith asked about the patio doors. Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75' setback,which would have worked with the excess 400 s.f.they had allowed if it weren't now used up. Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance. Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28%hardcover variance she was requesting with a conforming lot,when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance to allow 37%hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers were a nonconforming lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks. Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting rid of an old shed within the 75' setback,removing the stone borders in front, and any nonessential retaining walls, although the majority are serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway. Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied. Ms. Kosek indicated that the patio doors were not added intentionally to cause trouble,they were moved with the thought the square footage was available. Bremer indicated that she did not have a problem supporting the request based on what had been suggested by Commissioner Rahn. The nonessential rock and old driveway need to be removed. She agreed that it was difficult to allow a 37%variance for a nonconforming smaller lot and not allow this more reasonable request. Berg concurred. Rahn believed the driveway could not be reduced and safely allow the applicants to access Highway 19, he was in support of the application and believed it to be a minimal request, Frtizler indicated that he did not wish to see additional hardcover on the property and believed the retaining walls should have been built into the original request. PAGE 27 OF 29