Laserfiche WebLink
E <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 <br />however, that variances are worth money to the residents in terms of value to the <br />property. <br />Lindquist asked if changes should be made or maintain standards currently followed. <br />Schroeder felt the Council should be consulted. Hawn said if all agree to the conclusions <br />drawn, then the Planning Commission should vote in that manner. McMillan noted the <br />need to define hardship in applications. <br />Lindquist indicated if the Council is in agreement with the Commission 80% of the time, <br />the Commission can make the effort to hold firm to the ordinances. Schroeder questioned <br />whether any of the ordinances are irrelevant. He noted that in order to take a firmer <br />stand, the Commission should debate the relevancy of the ordinances. Gaffron cited the <br />is average lakeshore setback variance may be one that could be changed and brought before <br />the Commission only when there is an impact. Lindquist asked what happens if the <br />ordinance requires the application be presented to the Planning Commission. Gaffron <br />said the ordinance would then need revision. <br />Smith asked if the Planning Commission could make use of a consent agenda. Gaffron <br />said this is not possible due to due diligence. Hawn noted the audience could be polled. <br />Gaffron questioned if the Commission defines those variances that are going to be <br />approved, are those ordinances necessary. Hawn said it was a matter of saving time. <br />Lindquist suggested such applications be placed first on the agenda rather than going by <br />application number. <br />Hawn asked if the Commissioners could arrive to the meetings with a list of items that <br />they are ready to approve. Gaffron noted that the Council has a consent agenda. <br />17 <br />