My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 11:06:00 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 11:06:00 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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,October 18,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3055 Dr.Martha Spencer, Continued) <br /> Spencer commented that would be more detrimental in her view than a gazebo located further away <br /> from the lake. <br /> Kempf stated the gazebo is located approximately 15 feet from the existing deck and that he does not <br /> recall the area being that uneven. <br /> Spencer indicated the ground in that area is uneven. <br /> Ritter stated there is a hill on either side of the house that makes it difficult for his client to access the <br /> back yard from the front. <br /> Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be located is fairly flat. <br /> Ritter stated that part of the yard is flat. Ritter indicated the patios were designed to be transition areas <br /> so the property owner could access the back yard. Ritter stated it is his understanding a property <br /> owner has the right to make their back yard functional. <br /> Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and usable. <br /> Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp. <br /> Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the back yard but that the portion <br /> where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is not needed to access that portion of the property. <br /> Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the current design or the amount of hardcover being proposed. <br /> Ritter reiterated that the reason for a variance is to make a back yard functional and usable. <br /> Rahn indicated he is not aware of that language being contained in the code. <br /> Gundlach indicated she also is not aware of that. <br /> Leslie stated the two plateaus in the back yard do not prohibit the applicant from enjoying the back <br /> yard. Leslie stated the property owner has access to the back yard through the lower level of the house <br /> and access to the front yard from the upper level of the residence. Leslie stated the back yard is being <br /> used today and is accessible. Leslie stated in his opinion the absence of a gazebo does not make the <br /> back yard nonfunctional. <br /> Ritter inquired what detriment there would be to the environment or to the property if a gazebo were <br /> constructed as proposed. <br /> PAGE 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.