Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF TI3E ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 21,2001 <br /> (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) <br /> Stoddard noted the Applicants are entitled to another 12 square feet because of the removal of the <br /> fireplace,which would bring it to 58 square feet. Stoddard commented that is one option the <br /> Applicants could consider. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Stoddard stated he would be�villing to allow the ice house and have the Applicants provide some type <br /> of sidewalk to the front door. Stoddard stated he would be against any type of vehicular access to the <br /> third garage stall. <br /> Smith stated that means no mulch, no paver stones,no fabric would be allowed relating to the third <br /> garage stall. Smith reiterated that once that area is driven over,the soil then starts to act as hardcover. <br /> Mrs. Cable indicated they are plannin?to store a Corvette in the third garage stall,which currently is <br /> not in operating condition. <br /> Kluth commented in his opinion the harids of the Planning Commission are somewhat tied since the <br /> Applicants have proceeded to construct a house to the maximum hardcover allowed and then in his <br /> view will later come in and request variances for items that probably should have been included in the <br /> original site plan. . <br /> Mrs. Cable stated at the time they purchased this property and began this process,they were somewhat <br /> ignorant of Orono's rules and regulations regarding hardcover and structural coverage. At the time <br /> they purchased the property,the ice house was one of the attracting features of the property. <br /> Mrs. Cable stated they did not deliberately attempt to manipulate the system and had the <br /> understanding they would be able to keep the ice house when they purchased the property. <br /> Kluth commented the Planning Commission tends to see other applications where they have <br /> constructed a house ap to the maximum hardcover and structural coverage allowed and then later <br /> request additional hardcover. <br /> Smith stated all Applicants should provide for reasonable amenities in their site p(ans, such as <br /> sidewalks and driveways, because chances are, in the future, those will be added. <br /> Cable commented the house that was removed was eonsiderably in excess of the hardcover and <br /> structural limits and in piace they have constructed a house that is in compliance with the hardcover <br /> limits. Cable stated they did not deliberately try to manipulate the system. <br /> Stoddard stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission has been very strict about the <br /> 25 percent hardcover limit and has not approved any that esceed that number. <br /> Smith inquired whether any restrictions could be placed on this property limiting additional hardcover <br /> in the future. <br /> Gaffron stated one option would be to ask the App(icants to place a covenant on the property <br /> restricting additional hardcover,which�vould explain to this property owner and future property <br /> PAGE 4 <br />