My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/16/1992 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
03/16/1992 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2012 9:08:24 AM
Creation date
2/28/2012 9:08:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MARCH 16, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1723 - CONT. <br />Mabusth explained this application has four parts. She noted that <br />the application involves two parcels which have been legally <br />combined, Outlot A of Countryside Manor plat and R.L.S. 1080. The <br />property consists of 64 acres. She explained that the first phase <br />deals with the three sided garage structure added to an existing <br />garage on the R.L.S. portion of the property. The structure <br />require a variance to the oversized accessory structure ordinance. <br />She explained that the code allows for a total of 6,000 s.f. for <br />accessory structures on property 9 acres or over. Mabusth <br />explained the second phase involves a 6 -8' high fence along <br />Watertown Road where a 3 1/2' high fence would be allowed. She <br />indicated the fence was in place long ago, and has been expanded <br />due to applicant's claim of an impact on the property from the <br />recent development of Golden View Drive. <br />Mabusth went on to explain that since the properties have been <br />combined, the second principal residence on Outlot A would need <br />conditional use approval to be used as a non - rental unit. She <br />noted there is adequate area on the property if the applicants <br />wished to divide off area for this structure in the future. She <br />stated the second conditional use permit is required for a <br />temporary greenhouse structure used two months each year for a <br />special crop project. <br />Chair Kelley asked if the oversized accessory structure square <br />footage calculation includes the temporary greenhouse structure. <br />He stated he did not have a problem with the overage of accessory <br />structure square footage as long as the acreage of the property <br />remains the same, or if improvements are proposed, additional <br />review by the City would be needed. All Members agreed. <br />Chair Kelley asked how Members felt about the fence. He stated <br />that it is placed i n the wooded area of the property, but noted <br />that it had been added onto since the recent development across the <br />street. <br />Mabusth noted that the fence had been altered in height during <br />construction of the road, but those vertical sections had been <br />removed. <br />Rowlette stated she understood the problem with the road across the <br />street, but noted she could not approve a fence of this height. <br />Chair Kelley stated that since the house was there first, then the <br />road across the street developed, he felt that was adequate <br />hardship for allowing the fence to remain. He asked if the entire <br />greenhouse structure is removed at the end of the two month season. <br />0 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.