My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/18/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
08/18/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:53:58 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:53:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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, August 18, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#13) #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, 3135 CASCO <br /> CIRCLE,VARIANCE, 8:23—8:59 P.M. <br /> Bruce Meese and Maureen Murphy, the Applicants, and Carrigan Curtis from Stonehouse <br /> Designs,were present. <br /> Waataja reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new <br /> home: <br /> 1. Lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home on a .49 acre lot when .5 acres is <br /> required. <br /> 2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home where the width at the shoreline <br /> and 75' setback is 60' when 100' is normally required. <br /> 3. Hardcover variance to allow 6%hardcover in the 0-75' zone when 0% is allowed and to <br /> allow 37%hardcover in the 250-500' zone when 30% is allowed <br /> Originally, Waataj a stated that the applicants applied for a variance to remodel the existing <br /> home and allow an existing,non-conforming 8' setback in the southwestern corner of the <br /> home to remain to try and save an existing large maple tree. After reviewing the plans and <br /> conversations with the architect it became apparent that the majority of the existing home <br /> was to be demolished to accommodate the renovations, and if the true intention was to <br /> save the tree the home should be shifted north. Because of this staff directed the applicant <br /> that the project would be reviewed as a rebuild and that the home should be shifted to meet <br /> the 10' setback requirement. The applicant agreed to this and submitted new plans <br /> applying for a lot area and lot width variance. <br /> Waataja explained that upon further examination of the plans it was discovered that the <br /> new home would meet the hardcover requirements in the 75-250' zone but the 0-75'and <br /> 250-500' zones, as they currently exist, are over on hardcover. Due to the rebuild, the <br /> whole lot is reviewed for hardcover compliance and has required the applicant to now <br /> apply for hardcover variances. <br /> Because the house is being rebuilt and not renovated a lot area and lot width variance must <br /> be reviewed as a formality. The lot is approximately 21,392 s.f. or .49 acres in area,just <br /> short of the 22,000 s.f(.50 acre) requirement. The property measures 60' in width at the <br /> shoreline as well as at the 75' setback line, 40' short of the 100' width requirement. This <br /> is generally the characteristics of lots in this neighborhood. Waataja explained that the <br /> applicants bought the property this past winter. The new plans meet the hardcover <br /> requirements for the 75-250' zone. Because the house is being rebuilt the entire lot is <br /> reviewed for hardcover compliance. Both the 0-75' and 250-500' zones are non-compliant <br /> as they currently exist. <br /> In the 0-75'zone there is approximately 14% of hardcover. This includes a circular <br /> concrete patio, fire-pit, stairway,boulder retaining walls, and deck. The applicants have <br /> agreed to remove the circular concrete patio and fire-pit which results in 355 s.f. or 7.4% <br /> PAGE 23 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.