Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) <br /> Rahn agreed that they could redesign an attractive curving deck which would not exceed <br /> the 15% and fill in a portion of the `U' shape. <br /> Chair Smith concurred, encouraging the applicants to tweak their design in order stay <br /> within the 15% allowance for structural coverage. <br /> Mr. Obele agreed that this would be doable. <br /> Mr. Fiebelkorn pointed out that the driveway removals were never required as part of his <br /> past application and argued that the removals were suggested at the time as one way to <br /> keep his pool and spa. Since he had been required to remove his pool and spa, the <br /> driveway removals were moot, therefore he should not be required to remove driveway <br /> hardcover now. <br /> Chair Smith thanked the applicant for the history with regard to the driveway removal and <br /> asked Gaffron for further detail. <br /> Gaffron indicated that it would be staff's recommendation to require additional driveway <br /> removals as a condition of this application. <br /> Mrs. Fiebelkorn stated that they wished to merely repair the existing deck and make it <br /> useable. <br /> Chair Smith indicated that, without additional removals, the Commission would likely not <br /> look favorably upon any further additions. <br /> Hawn agreed with the applicant that they should be allowed to replace an existing deck, as <br /> long as they stay within the 15% structural coverage figures do so. <br /> Mrs. Fiebelkorn pointed out that requiring the removals of additional driveway space <br /> would cause them difficulty in maneuvering in and out of their driveway onto County <br /> Road 19. She maintained that traversing the driveway safely with less blacktop would <br /> place an undue hardship on them. She indicated that the adjoining neighbor's driveway <br /> also encroaches on their property and indicated to her that the 86 s.f. encroachment did not <br /> trouble him. <br /> Bremer indicated that she would not support driveway removals if they were to pose a <br /> safety hazard. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> PAGE 16 of 40 <br />