Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 <br />(#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) <br />Schroeder agreed with Smith and Lindquist. <br />GatTron commented that the cabins were currently rented. He added that the Council had <br />given direction some time ago allowing a fair period of time, two years, to continue the <br />cabin rental with no need to temporarily connect to sewer, but with the main house sewer <br />connection required, which has not been done. <br />Schroeder said the hardships do not merit the number of variances requested. <br />Proveau said that Maeser expressed concern with the sewer hookup issue. He noted that <br />the financial benefits of cabin rental were significant to Maeser's ability to owning the <br />property. Proveau said if the sale of the property were to fall through, Maeser would <br />request the cabin be hooked up to sewer. Proveau asked that options be considered to <br />enable Maeser to homestead the property noting that the code was the cause in the decline <br />of the market value of the property. <br />Lindquist responded that he had a problem with splitting up a 2 -acre parcel in the 2 acre <br />zoning district. <br />• Smith suggested the possibility of purchasing additional property from the owner to the <br />north. Gaffron said there was probably not enough land to do that; but with one lot only, <br />a portion right be sold to that neighbor to increase his lot size. Brueggemann said the <br />feasibility of a sale of any land to or from the neighbor to the north was slim. Gaffron said <br />the neighborhood redevelopment process, by which two lots would be purchased together <br />to create a more conforming single building site, is a slow process. <br />Mabusth noted that even if the area was re -zoned to 1 acre, variances would still be <br />required. There would still be the need for a total of 2 -1/2 acres including the outlot, <br />resulting in a half acre shortage. <br />Schroeder asked the applicants if they would prefer the application be voted on or tabled. <br />Brueggemann inquired about a joint session between the Council and Planning <br />Commission to discuss the sketch plan. Gaffron said the application had not been <br />discussed in the joint session though it was previously suggested that a discussion ensue <br />regarding the sketch plan. Gaffron informed the applicant of the 60 day time frame for <br />review of any application, and noted that the applicant needed to agree to tabling the <br />application or the Planning Commission would have to vote on it now. Brueggemann <br />asked that the application be voted on and carried forward to the Council. <br />Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to deny approval of Application #2099 as the <br />hardships do not justify the variances required for the subdivision as outlined in the memo. <br />40 Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />6 <br />