My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-12-2006 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
06-12-2006 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:32:18 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 4:32:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 12, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. • <br />(8. #06 -3200 HICKORY FINE HOMES, 1374 REST POINT ROAD, Continued) <br />From Staff's perspective, while the pool is an attractive amenity for this site, it results in excess <br />hardcover and Staff fails to see a hardship to allow it to remain in conjunction with building a new home <br />on the site, especially based on its nonconforming location. <br />Bohl stated the main issue is the pool, which relates to hardcover, and that he requested the Council hear <br />the application rather than having it tabled. Bohl stated the pool is very important to the Gangstees and <br />that they have reduced the size of the home in an effort to keep the pool. Bohl noted the pool has been <br />there for a long time. Bohl noted the hot tub was removed and the size of the house reduced. <br />Bohl stated the neighbors did raise some concerns regarding drainage on the western side of the lot but <br />that there is no opposition to the house or the pool. <br />Sansevere inquired what the hardship is for retaining the pool. <br />Bohl stated the existing house is located closer to the road and that the proposed house is pushed back <br />farther, which does not allow the pool to be moved forward, which is a hardship in his view. Bohl <br />commented the existing conditions are being improved by shifting the house further back on the lot. <br />Gangstee stated in addition it was represented to the previous owners that the pool was outside of the <br />0 -75' zone. <br />Sansevere inquired how far the pool encroaches into the 0 -75' zone. • <br />Gaffron stated the pool is located 67 feet from the shore and the patio is 63 feet. <br />Murphy inquired how long the pool has been in existence. <br />Gangstee stated since 1987. <br />Murphy inquired whether the pool could be moved. <br />Gangstee indicated he is unsure. <br />Bohl stated between the house and the pool there is a five -foot retaining wall and they are proposing <br />some grading in this area so the grade at the first floor elevation and the pool would be more of a <br />gradual slope. Bohl stated the closer the pool is brought to the house, the greater the need for a retaining <br />wall. <br />Sansevere stated due to the fact that this is a rebuild, the City Council has to remain consistent and not <br />allow any encroachments in the 0 -75' zone. Sansevere stated it would be unfair to allow this <br />encroachment but not the other residents who have approached the City requesting an encroachment in <br />the 0 -75' zone. <br />Gaffron stated out of six lots that were roughly the same size, four of them had hardcover around 28 <br />percent. Gaffron stated this application is out of the range for hardcover granted to other similar lots. • <br />PAGE 12 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.