Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 15, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated that the substandard lot allows 1,500s.f. of cover; whereas, the applicants <br /> have proposed 1,883 s.f., which is over by about 383 s.f. He suggested that one option <br /> might be for the applicants to create a design that would incorporate a tuck under garage or <br /> second story on the home. <br /> Ms. Labalt felt a two story home would be out of character and stick out like a sore thumb, <br /> versus adding out which would be more attractive. <br /> Rahn stated that the lot is allowed 1,500 s.f of structural cover, which is virtually where it <br /> stands currently, and encouraged the applicants to reconfigure the home to maintain 1,500 <br /> s.f. <br /> Mr. Labalt asked if the size of the home was about as big as it could get. <br /> Mabusth suggested they consider a second story addition and/or tuck under garage for their <br /> design and work with staff to achieve their goals. <br /> Chair Smith indicated that they could table for redesign or vote for denial and send them to <br /> Council. <br /> Mr. Labalt asked that they be sent forward to City Council with a recommendation. <br /> Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive,who shares the driveway access with the Labalts, <br /> stated that he would like his 10' driveway easement back. He maintained that the Labalts <br /> had placed stakes along the driveway narrowing up his access and making almost <br /> impassable for delivery trucks etc. <br /> Mr. Labalt stated that he placed the stakes along his property line in an effort to reclaim his <br /> property that has been overdriven for years. He stated that the neighbor has been <br /> encroaching further and further onto his property and the only way for him to reclaim what <br /> is rightfully his was to place the stakes on the property line. <br /> Gaffron asked if the residents held surveys of their property rights and suggested they <br /> contact their own prospective lawyers to determine the property line. <br /> Labalt stated that he had a recent survey in his possession that backed up his claim. <br /> Finney stated that he did not have a survey; however, stated that the trees prohibit him on <br /> one side from driving further over. He asked if the gravel driveway was grandfathered in <br /> one way or another with or without a survey. <br /> PAGE 18 of 25 <br />