09-18-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 • ( #8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued) Gaffron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the fact that the properties are adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists between the two parties involved. The property at 2965 Casco would not be owned by the person conducting an occupation there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility of clients coming to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility of a third party using the upper residential space. This would then seem to appear as a mixed residential/commercial use and then possibly be a use variance. Gaffron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the family relationship, then the appearance of a use variance still exists if the lots are separately owned and not combined. If both properties were owned by Rozeboom but not combined, it may be closer to the appearance of a home occupation. Finally, with legal combination, this is much more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with performance standard variances. Variance approval does require findings of hardship. Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires the person running the business to live in that dwelling. Peterson said he would vote to deny the application. Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home occupation use. He was told it did not. Rozeboom said he could change the residence at 2965 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would have any bearing on the approval or denial. He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he would not. Rozeboom said he was an architectural consultant and the purpose of this proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother -in -law to live. Rozeboom said if he combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties. Peterson said he would not consider changing the ordinance, to which Lindquist agreed. Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose value of the property by combining lots. She saw no reason why the applicant could not work out of the residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage house for his own home at 2967 Casco. The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and be reflective of the neighborhood and of a home. Schroeder commented that a hardcover trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license. There were no public comments. • 18