Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3044 Jennifer Simon,continued) <br /> Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like her application tabled. <br /> Simon stated she would prefer not to table the application. Simon commented if the addition is <br /> constructed on the front of the yard, the front yard is basically ruined. <br /> Kempf noted the southwest corner of the lot is the nicest part of the lot, and that if the addition is <br /> moved forward and the deck is away from the street,the view from the house is turned towards the <br /> more private part of the lot. <br /> Rahn stated the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council and that she could <br /> plead her case before them. <br /> Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend denial of Application#04-3044, denial of a <br /> rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence located at <br /> 3925 Cherry Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Kempf opposed. <br /> 9. #04-3046 ROBERT W.AND BRENDA ZOE MACDONALD,2480 OLD BEACH <br /> ROAD—AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:28—8:12 p.m.) <br /> Robert MacDonald, Applicant, and Tim Kelley,Attorney-at-Law,appeared on behalf of the <br /> Applicants. <br /> Gundlach noted a letter from Mr. Kelley has been distributed to the Planning Commission <br /> concerning this application. <br /> Gundlach indicated the applicants are requesting an after-the-fact side yard setback variance to permit <br /> the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required. The <br /> new garage originated by pouring a new slab over the old slab,reusing the mechanical systems, and <br /> constructing new walls and a new roof. The new garage is located in the same location as the old <br /> garage. <br /> Gundlach explained the changes from the old garage to the new garage consist of a steeper pitched <br /> roof, a turning of the roof line, and two dormers added to the conforming side of the garage. Gundlach <br /> indicated the City has consistently granted variances to property owners in order to maintain their <br /> nonconforming structures to match exactly the old structure and also in some cases to make slight <br /> modifications. <br /> Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission review this application in one of the two following <br /> ways: One, if the Planning Commission determines the improvements to the garage consist of <br /> improvements to the nonconforming structure,the after-the-fact variance should be approved; or two, <br /> if the Planning Commission determines the structure has been completely rebuilt,the <br /> after-the-fact variance should be denied since the structure could have been relocated to meet the <br /> 10-foot setback. <br /> PAGE 17 <br />