Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 <br />(#6 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) <br />Lindquist asked how many applications have been looked at which would be affected by <br />this amendment. Gaffron said there have been 2 -3 applications which might not have <br />required variances if a complete table had originally been adopted. He noted many permit <br />applications have met the table standards and did not need a variance. Gaffron said the <br />result of an amendment would be a reduction in the number of variance applications. <br />Lindquist said the problem he sees that if a structure was over 3000 s.f., it still could be <br />objectionable and should be reviewed. <br />Hawn said if the chart was followed and a building was over 3000 s.f., it would be hard to <br />envision what people are designing. Hawn said she would like to look at it case by case. <br />Gaffron commented that today at 10 acres, the largest building would be 3000 s.f., and <br />asked if she was suggesting stopping at that point for large building parcels. Hawn asked <br />if it meant more structures or larger buildings. Gaffron said he was referring to individual <br />buildings. Hawn said if the Commission has only looked at 2 -3 applications, they should <br />continue to review others. Lindquist agreed. <br />Schroeder asked if the Staff felt they were overburdened by this limitation. Both Mabusth <br />and Gaffron said that was not the case, that the number of variances is minimal. <br />• Hawn said if it was a matter of more accessory structures, she would see no problem with <br />expanding the tables. Gaffron commented that with the current code people do not know <br />what to expect when there is a desire for larger buildings. Schroeder said he would like to <br />ask these applications to come before the Commission as variances. Lindquist noted that <br />these buildings have been approved in the past, and the Commission would just like to <br />look at what is proposed. Schroeder also noted the need to look at the hardships and <br />recommended that the Council be advised the Planning Commission does not see a need to <br />revise the tables. <br />Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to leave the zoning code as it is presently based on the <br />few applications affected and the desire to review larger buildings regardless of acreage. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />10 <br />