Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, November 17, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST, <br /> AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continued <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth pointed out that, specifically, the rules regarding sport courts exist <br /> to protect adjacent neighbors from the additional noise and disturbance the courts, and <br /> lights, create by nature. <br /> Gaffron asked the Commission whether they could find any hardship that would support <br /> the approval of the proposed location, had the application come to them before-the-fact. <br /> Although she could appreciate their concern about visibility, Acting Chair Mabusth stated <br /> that, had they come in prior to construction, they would have been asked to test for septic <br /> and move it closer to meet the 30' setback. <br /> Gross acknowledged that, while they could try to reduce the size of the court to fit within <br /> the City Code, at great expense, he questioned how the additional 4' would eliminate the <br /> impact that noise and children might have. <br /> Bremer asked what the sport court would have to be reduced by to allow it to remain 10' <br /> from the property line. <br /> Gaffron indicated that accessory structures of 0-750 s.f. require a 10' setback, from 750- <br /> 1500 s.f. require a 15' setback and so on. <br /> Hawn stated that this is the second time she had heard of this sort of setback issue being <br /> created by sport courts and asked why this continues. <br /> Bremer pointed out that the contract with Sport Court clearly states it is the homeowner's <br /> responsibility to pull the permits. <br /> Gross stated that, having never been in a position where the contractor hadn't pulled the <br /> permit, they simply had overlooked that aspect of the contract in the excitement of getting <br /> their sport court. He reiterated that they never would have walked willingly into this <br /> predicament and noted that his proposed options placed a pretty significant impact on him <br /> and his family. <br /> Fritzler maintained that the applicants must reduce the size of their sport court and keep <br /> any fencing within limits as well. <br /> While she would not have voted to support the current placement of the sport court if <br /> they'd come before the Commission first, Hawn asked whether a time limit should be <br /> placed on the courts removal or new placement. <br /> PAGE 14 of 41 <br />