Laserfiche WebLink
' MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> " Tuesday,March 17,2008 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#08-3335 Douglas and Margaret.Franchot, Continued) <br /> David Healy, 2135 Colin Dri�e,illustrated the location of his residence and noted that they are the <br /> neighbors"most directly affected by the pool. Healy indicated they are in favor of the location <br /> proposed by the Franchots and that the location recommended by Staff is not ideal given the fact that <br /> the tall white pines would need to be removed, which is not in the best interests of the neighborhood or <br /> � the City. Healy stated they are in favor of the variance. <br /> Healy noted one of his neighbors was granted a variance without a hardship and constructed a 3000 <br /> foot driveway out to Brown Road where he could have easily constructed a 200 foot driveway out to <br /> Colin Drive. <br /> Acting Chair Kroeger closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. <br /> � Kang commented she would prefer the trees not be removed in order to locate the pool behind the <br /> house. � � <br /> � Rice stated it does not need to be a choice between the trees and a pool near the street and that the <br /> owners currently have reasonable use of their property without the pool. Rice stated the location of <br /> the pool should be guided by the code. <br /> Kempf concurred with Commissioner Rice's comments and noted that a hardship has not been <br /> � demonstrated to locate the pool in front of the residence. Kempf asked whether there has been a <br /> similar situation where the City has granted variances to allow a building in front of the principal <br /> stxucture. . <br /> Gaffron stated to his recollection there are two examples where a building was constructed in front of <br /> a principal residence. The first one is located on Orono Oaks Drive,which is a wooded area and the <br /> garage is well screened the majority of the time. The second instance is located on Bayside Road, <br /> which is also wooded and in a rural setting. Gaffron indicated that generally the variances that have <br /> been approved for buildings in front of a principal structure have been heavily screened. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether a variance would be required for the fencing around a pool. <br /> Gaffron stated City Code does not require fencing around a pool and the applicants would be allowed <br /> a six-foot fence since it is out of the defined 50-foot setback from the street. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether the applicants would be erecting a fence. <br /> � Franchot stated they are planning on constructing a fence, although not a six-foot fence, and they are <br /> planning on doing a lot of screening. <br /> Zullo indicated she is in agreement that the trees in the back yard should not be removed in order to <br /> locate a pool in that area and that she is agreeable to granting the variance. <br /> PAGE 3 <br />