Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 20,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Bollis indicated he is in favor of the dock on that side but that he does not know whether this is the easiest <br /> way to do it or not. <br /> Barnhart stated Staff did look at a number of solutions and that the City does not see a lot of variances <br /> when it comes to this. Staff feels this is the best solution they can think of. <br /> Erickson stated he is leaning in favor of the variance and that he agrees with the statement in the report <br /> that the end of the peninsula is not of the applicant's making and is unique to this property. Because of <br /> that uniqueness,there is not a concern about this setting a precedent. <br /> Libby indicated he also would support a variance. <br /> McCutcheon stated he agrees with the comments made by the other commissioners and that it appears to <br /> be an oversight. <br /> Ressler stated he does not see any malicious intent and that this appears to be an oversight. <br /> Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not approving that other information just because it happens <br /> to show up on a plan. A practical difficulty is not that it showed up on a plan previously since a number <br /> of things show up on a plan but are later changed. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission did not <br /> approve other changes that were made to the plan after they reviewed it. <br /> Ressler stated this solution seems reasonable and that he would be in support of this particular <br /> application. <br /> Libby moved,Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000028, Steven <br /> Eggert on behalf of Lake West Development,Outlot A, Ivy Place,granting of a variance. VOTE: <br /> Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PLUMBING IN <br /> ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,8:20 P.M.—8:27 P.M. <br /> Curtis noted in December the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 222 and Summary Ordinance No. 223 <br /> regarding changes to the regulations relating to accessory buildings and accessory structures. This was a <br /> comprehensive amendment meant to capture all of the language changes/edits Staff determined necessary <br /> as well as provide a thoughtful revision to the required setbacks of both accessory buildings and accessory <br /> structures. <br /> The requirement for the building to be"conforming with respect to location, size,and height"was <br /> intended to be removed from each of the conditional use sections of the preceding sections to be replaced <br /> with the language outlined in Staffs report. <br /> The amendment would affect those changes as originally anticipated as well as remove the current <br /> conflict and ambiguity in the Code. <br /> To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> Page 14 of 16 <br />