Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 21,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued <br /> Rahn questioned if a diagonal stairway off the deck would interfere with the views from the <br /> lower floor windows. <br /> Cloud explained that the window views would not be obstructed since they are offset to one side. <br /> Mabusth inquired if the deck stairway could run off one side versus off the front. <br /> Fritzler reiterated his desire to see the deck space swapped out for stairway space. <br /> Cloud stated that he felt the Commission was holding him hostage. He indicated that he was <br /> trying to work with the City, bringing the deck up to code by adding a stairway access and <br /> removing the lakeside shed, however he wasn't even being allowed to replace the previous deck <br /> he had in exchange. <br /> Chair Smith questioned whether, if by using the space under the deck for storage, could the <br /> applicant remove the rear shed. Would he prefer to move it or lose it. <br /> Hawn pointed out that there was no place to move the shed on the property. <br /> Cloud stated that the shed could not be moved, it was blacktopped in by the previous owner, and <br /> moving it would destroy the shed and/or block his garage access. He questioned why the City <br /> did not take this up with the previous owner if it were a big concern, the contact letters he had <br /> seen from the City were ten years old. <br /> Gary Marquant, 2617 Casco Point Road, stated that, while he did not know Mr. Cloud, he could <br /> offer an unbiased opinion. Mr. Marquant believed the applicant was trying to work with the <br /> City, and had committed to removing his lakeside shed, only to be told he cannot even get what <br /> he had originally. He questioned if the net gain by removing the shed wasn't worth the <br /> allowance of a stairway access, which improved the safety of the deck. <br /> Chair Smith questioned where the structural coverage numbers were. <br /> Bottenberg noted that the structural coverage would be 22.1%with the stairway, versus 21.2% <br /> without. <br /> Hawn reiterated that the rear shed was nonconforming in so many ways that she would like to <br /> see it eliminated. <br /> Bremer stated that she would approve the application with the original size deck and additional <br /> steps, as long as the lakeside shed were removed. <br /> Berg concurred. <br /> Page 8 <br />