My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-17-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
03-17-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 11:02:27 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 2:20:41 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.
/
247
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 />Tuesday, February 18, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 11 <br /> <br />he is not sure how the encroachment happened but that there was probably still some church ownership of <br />the property that surrounded the main church property. Gaffron stated he is assuming that was not <br />considered to be an issue at the time if it existed. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated this wedding activity has been going on for a number of years and that approximately <br />five or ten years ago Staff had a discussion with the City Attorney and again recently about whether it <br />would be considered a commercial use. The City Attorney indicated that weddings are part of a church <br />use and that it is unlikely the City would be able to make the church discontinue them. Gaffron stated <br />weddings are technically something that is part of the church use that is under an existing Conditional Use <br />Permit and therefore is allowed to continue. Gaffron stated Staff was informed by the City Attorney that <br />weddings are an allowed use regardless of who is operating the church or how the church is being <br />operated. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked whether the number of parishioners or the amount of money charged for the weddings <br />would have any impact on it. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated those factors would not. Staff had that concern initially when it started to appear to be <br />more of a commercial activity than simply a church, and noted if the City wanted to pursue it further, the <br />City Attorney would need to get involved. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3648, Ben <br />Goodwin, 565 Leaf Street and 550 Oxford Road, granting of a variance to allow an 8-foot fence <br />where a 6-foot fence is the maximum. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br />3. #14-3649 DEREK AND KELLY PRCHAL, 4705 WATERTOWN ROAD, VARIANCE, <br />6:55 P.M. – 7:03 P.M. <br /> <br />Derek and Kelly Prchal, Applicants, were present. <br /> <br />Curtis stated in 1999, a variance was granted allowing an oversized 1,120 square foot barn to be <br />constructed streetward of the existing home. The home is situated at the rear of the property. The <br />applicants are new owners of the property and would like to remove the barn and construct a new 2,200 <br />square foot garage approximately in its place. A 2,200 square foot accessory structure is defined as an <br />oversized accessory structure. A setback variance is required as the proposal is not an in-kind rebuild. <br /> <br />The applicants’ property has over 700 feet in depth from Watertown Road. The house is located 60 feet <br />from the rear property line making it difficult to construct a conforming accessory structure. According <br />to City Code, an oversized accessory structure must meet principal structure setbacks for the appropriate <br />zoning district. In addition, City Code states that no detached garage or other accessory building shall be <br />located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. <br /> <br />The property is located within Tier I of the Stormwater Quality Overlay District based on its proximity to <br />Painter’s Creek on the western boundary. Hardcover calculations were not submitted as part of the <br />application. Due to the size of the property and the location of the proposed new hardcover, Staff does <br />not feel the 25 percent limitation would be reached with this proposal. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 03/17/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 02/18/2014 <br />[Page 5 of 11]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.