Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> ' Tuesday,January 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued) <br /> Rahn stated in order to leave the guesthouse, it would need to be 100 percent conforming. <br /> Gundlach pointed out an additional septic site would need to be located. Gundlach stated Orono's Codes <br /> also do not allow an accessory structure closer to the road than a principal structure if it is not a lakeshore <br /> lot. <br /> Fritzler inquired why it would not be considered a lakeshore lot. <br /> Gaffron stated it is a difficult situation to determine because of the 800 feet of wetland between the <br /> property's OHW and any open water. Access across other properties would also be necessary to reach the <br /> open water. Gaffron stated this property functionally has all of the limitations of a lakeshore lot but none <br /> of the benefits. Gaffron stated in his view lot 2 is probably not functionally a lakeshore lot but could <br /> possibly meet all of the definitions of a lakeshore lot. <br /> Fritzler pointed out if it is not a lakeshore lot,the guesthouse would need to be removed. <br /> Rahn asked for public comments. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Rahn stated the issues he has on this application deal with the septic sites,the reconfiguring of the lot <br /> lines, and the guesthouse remaining. Rahn recommended a fourth septic site be located. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view the guesthouse should be removed due to a number of issues. <br /> Gronberg stated they are only talking a 10 to 15 foot setback variance for the guesthouse and that the one <br /> access onto Fox Street could be eliminated if necessary. <br /> Gundlach noted the guesthouse is located 38 feet from Fox Street where 50 feet is required. <br /> Rahn stated in his view the guesthouse should be removed, and if the guesthouse should remain, it would <br /> need to be accessed off the primary driveway. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the guesthouse should be removed if lots 5 and 6 are combined. <br /> Rahn stated the guesthouse would still be considered nonconforming and that the code requires these <br /> guesthouses to be conforming. <br /> Gaffron inquired whether the guesthouse would need to be removed if lots 5 and 6 are someday divided. <br /> Fritzler pointed out the guesthouse is still not conforming even if lots 5 and 6 are combined. Fritzler <br /> stated he would like the guesthouse to be dealt with at this time rather than in the future. <br /> PAGE 8 <br />