Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 21,2001 <br /> (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE,CONTINUED) <br /> owners what can and cannot happen on this property with respect to hardcover and structural <br /> coverage. <br /> Smith commented she is in favor of a covenant. <br /> Weinberger stated if the ice house is to remain,a variance would need to be granted. <br /> Stoddard stated it was his understanding they were under the hardcover limit by 58 square feet. <br /> Weinberger stated that is without the ice house being included. With the ice house they would be <br /> 50 square feet over,which would require a variance. <br /> Kluth stated if the ice house remains,they would not be allowed to construct a sidewalk or driveway <br /> to the third stall. <br /> Stoddard inquired what steps the Applicants have taken to reduce hard cover since the November <br /> meeting. <br /> Cable stated they have removed the fireplace. <br /> Smith inquired whether the sidewalk and driveway were included in the site plan at the November <br /> meeting. <br /> Mrs. Cable stated they were not. <br /> Stoddard stated he had misunderstood the situation and thought the Applicants were under the 25 <br /> percent limit with the ice house. <br /> K(uth stated this application was tabled in November to allow the Applicants time to make some <br /> changes to their plan to enable them to keep the ice house,which have not been done and that he <br /> would like to make a motion denying the application. <br /> Kluth moved to o recommend denial of Application#2636,Gary and Susan Cable,3532 Ivy <br /> Place, for a hardcover variance and variance to allow an accessory structure located in the 0-75' <br /> setback to remain on the property. <br /> Kluth stated the application was tabled in order to give the Applicants time to reduce the hardcover in <br /> order to keep the ice house,which have not been done,and by constructing a residence without a <br /> sidewalk and driveway access to the third stall of the garage was simply delaying a request for <br /> additional hardcover into the future. Kluth stated in his opinion protective covenants have only <br /> limited value since it only puts the next property owner on alert to what is or is not allowed on the <br /> property,with the City having limited means of monitoring these types of properties. <br /> Stoddard stated the Applicants also have the option to table this application in order them to reduce the ' <br /> hardcover further. Stoddard commented he had the understandina the Applicant was going to consider <br /> reducing the garage somewhat in order to lower the hardcover. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />