My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
03/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:22:41 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:22:39 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> NEW BUSINESS <br /> 6. #05-3089 THEODORE AND DEBORAH ROZEBOOM,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, <br /> VARIANCES,7:03 p.m.—7:21 p.m. <br /> Theodore Rozeboom,Applicant,was present. <br /> Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit an <br /> additional four-foot extension of both stories into the existing non-conforming average lakeshore <br /> setback. The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone to permit 31.7 <br /> percent when 25 percent is normally allowed and 33.2 percent currently exists, and a hardcover variance <br /> for the 250'-500' zone to permit 67.5 percent when 30 percent is normally allowed and 64.4 percent <br /> currently exists. <br /> Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the strict interpretation of <br /> Section 78-1279 (6), which aims to protect views to the lake. Gundlach stated Staff would minimally <br /> recommend removal of the hot tub and fence if the average lakeshore setback variance is approved. <br /> Gundlach noted the fence does exceed the six-foot height requirement and that the neighbor has <br /> expressed concerns regarding the hot tub and fence. <br /> Gundlach stated based upon a further understanding of the topography of this lot,it became clear that <br /> views would also be blocked for the neighbor to the south and that she would no longer recommend <br /> going forward with Exhibit L. <br /> Rozeboom had nothing to add to Staff's report. <br /> There were no public comments concerning this application. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the hot tub and fence are both encroaching. <br /> Gundlach stated the fence is over the property line,with the City requiring the hot tub and deck to be <br /> located ten feet off the property line. Gundlach indicated they are currently located one to two feet off <br /> the property line. <br /> Rozeboom stated they have resided in this house for approximately 22 years and that he would be <br /> willing to revise their proposal. Rozeboom noted the house was originally constructed in 1907 and that <br /> the porch was not part of the original construction and is not intended to be used year-round. Rozeboom <br /> indicated they would like to insulate the porch to make it usable at least three seasons of the year. <br /> Rozeboom concurred that the addition on the other side of the house would impact the views of the <br /> neighbor. <br /> Rozeboom indicated he would be willing to relocate the hot tub and reduce the height of the fence to six <br /> feet. <br /> PAGE 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.