My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
04-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2012 4:23:19 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:15:32 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
540
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
! � . . 1� � � � . <br /> �nf`�4�` <br /> � MI�i tUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLA��INZ1�iG COMMISSIOY <br /> Tuesday;February 20,Z007 <br /> � 6:00 o'cloc(c p.m. � <br /> appro:cimate(y 40 percent of the�vood structure of the e:�istin�house tivould remain but that the <br /> foundation is old aild i•aises some issues. Jacobson indicated they have desiQned a portion of the <br /> reside�zce to have a new fowldation and a new mechanical room. ' <br /> Jacobson stated tltey are attemptina to conlply with the spirit and intent of the law. <br /> Kempf asked�vhether from Staff s perspective there is some possibility tl�at the 75-foot setback was <br /> measured differently bac.k the�1. <br /> Gaffron stated the shoreline pcobably has erodec[ and that it is also probable the setbacks were <br /> measured pacallel to the lot lines and not to the lal:e. Gaffron stated the buitdina inspector at that time <br /> did accept the 75-foot setback. <br /> Rahn stated if the applicants would likc the pool to remain,they�vould need to construct a smaller • <br /> • home ancl that it is a matter of choices. Rahn stated it is nol lo�ical to leave the old fouildation under <br /> . the portion of the l�ouse that is noncompliant and to construct a ne�v foundatioi� under a different <br /> . portion of the house. <br /> Rahn stated seldom nas tne Fi�nnic��Conui�issioii alioti�e��a devefoper to asd o��to tl�e front of tl�c <br /> house tl�at is noncompliant as �vell as increasina the hei;ht. <br /> � ,Tacob�on stated a second floor is being added on to that area but they are not addina out. • <br /> Ke_mpf stated goin;ei� matters�vhen thei•e is an encroachinent. <br /> Zu(lo stated regardless of�vhether this is a rebuilt or a remodelin�project, additional structure wiihin a <br /> setback is not appropriate. <br /> Smolil:stated the setback at its narrow�est poinl is 18.6 feet ailil tllat there is a �relter setback as it goes <br /> iurther back. Smolil<stated they are attemptin� to honor the site lines of the neiQhbors. <br /> Rahn staied the issues in his «�ind are the Qara�e setbacl:. tlle front setbacl:, and the hardcover. <br /> • Itempi stated in orcier to ha��e a lar�z hoiue ancl a s��'immin� p�ol on La�e \�tinnecoiika, a la!•ge lot is <br /> r.�ce�sa��•. Ker:��.,'_'s*.at�.d i�e �vo��lt( (�{:�� to ��e i!�•: heus:: p�.�llzd ;��r;l�zr b1c!:. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.