Laserfiche WebLink
u <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD APRIL 19, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1812 - CONT. <br />Bellows inquired about the separation between the garage. <br />Mabusth noted since the garage is over 750 s.f. there should be a <br />15' setback, but there is only 4'. <br />Bellows noted emergency vehicles could not gain access to the <br />structures on this property. <br />Mabusth concurred. She continued that the applicant noted the boat <br />house to be structurally sound, however the building staff <br />disagreed and felt this to be a total rehabilitation of the <br />building. Total lot coverage is 4.7% over the allowed. The removal <br />of the boat house would reduce the hardcover in the 0 -75' zone to <br />6.7% and would reduce lot coverage enough to off -set the addition <br />to the house. <br />Goodyear stated he has determined that the foundation of the <br />• residence can support the addition. He added he proposes to reduce <br />the size of the boat house to about half, and to pour a foundation, <br />reroof and reside it. <br />Bellows stated that was where she drew the I i ne. She stated her <br />first concern was the location of the garage and the unsafe <br />condition present. She indicated her desire to see historical boat <br />houses maintained, but felt this one did not warrant that label. <br />She disagreed with the need for the side setback variance. She felt <br />the extent of the improvements went beyond what the property could <br />sustain. <br />Johnson inquired about the existing setback for the right side of <br />the house. <br />Mabusth explained currently there is an 11' setback, and the <br />applicant proposes the extension of a 2' chimney and the squaring <br />off of the foundation from the chimney line. <br />Goodyear noted the neighboring property owner has removed the <br />garage near his detached garage and will be rebuilding further <br />away, which creates a better separation. <br />Peterson felt the project to be too aggressive. <br />Schroeder agreed with the need for the separation for safety <br />• reasons, but stated no objection to the addition of a second story. <br />Goodyear asked that the application be tabled opposed to denied. <br />10 <br />