Laserfiche WebLink
. 1 <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, July 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#6 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued) <br /> Mabusth maintained that, not only could the deck size be reduced, but it could be pulled further <br /> out of the bluff setback as well. <br /> Mr. Henrich argued that the mosquito population is a nuisance and the deck raises them out of <br /> the grass. In addition, he pointed out that the deck was granted approval in 1990 and should be <br /> allowed to remain. Henrich added that neither the deck, nor shed, are noticeable from the lake. <br /> He maintained that, theirs was a definite hardship property. <br /> Rahn questioned if this were new construction, whether the deck would be allowed to stay and <br /> the hardcover meet 25%. <br /> Hawn arrived at 6:20 P.M. <br /> Chair Smith suggested they remove the shed. <br /> Berg asked what the shed was used for and noted that without it, the owners would need to house <br /> everything uphill. <br /> Henrich pointed out that, due to the extremely steep slope, the shed houses their pump, dock <br /> supplies, etc. <br /> Rahn stated that they have required others to lose their shed in lieu of a lockbox and asked how <br /> much space would be gained. <br /> Gaffron stated that the shed and steps constituted approximately 112 s.f. <br /> Rahn indicated that he liked the changes the applicant had made and stated that he would be <br /> willing to support the application as recommended by staff; however, he would require the <br /> removal of the shed and their going to a lockbox. <br /> Hawn stated that she viewed the application as new construction and found difficulty with the <br /> proposal. <br /> Henrich stated that, if he were able to rebuild, he would do so. Since his garage and deck have <br /> already been redone; however, it is only the house that remains and it does not meet code. <br /> Mrs. Henrich pointed out that they had already removed the top portion of the deck and <br /> maintained that if they were forced to remove much more of the deck, it would be unusable as a <br /> deck on top of the bluff. <br /> Mabusth suggested the Commission require the applicants to cut back the deck to meet a 10' <br /> bluff setback. She indicated that she could accept the 28%hardcover, recognizing they had come <br /> PAGE 4 of 37 <br />