Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> ready for that modification if it so goes that direction. He does not want to take public time talking about <br /> those options but at least wanted to clarify and simplify. He appreciates the comments made here and <br /> thinks the Staff recommendation has some weight to it, as well. He thinks the friendly amendment to <br /> make sure that the stair tread does not go further encroaching upon structure that is existing to the <br /> lakeshore seems agreeable to the Applicant, and seems agreeable to the spirit of what the rule is in place <br /> for. He thinks they are accommodating by allowing additional structure,just not going further than the <br /> structure that is here. He appreciates that going on the record for feedback to the Council. <br /> Ms. Curtis had a point of clarification. She said that the motion is to deny as proposed, but for the one or <br /> two stair treads, is the Commission generally speaking of an approval. She wants to make sure the <br /> Applicant understands that it is the stairs that encroach past that pillar that the Commission is not <br /> approving,but the rest is agreeable. <br /> Kirchner clarified on that,yes,his concern is essentially that final stair tread that appears to extend <br /> beyond. His motion for denial is a direct result of the one or two stair treads. Aside from that, in his <br /> motion,he is overall supportive and would recommend approval if those stairs do not extend beyond the <br /> furthest lakeward portion of the home. <br /> Erickson continued his discussion and said he is uncomfortable in principle of generally denying a <br /> proposal that they all agree they are mostly in favor of. That does not seem transparent to him, and seems <br /> more manipulative. He would be much more comfortable with a motion to approve and then if they want <br /> to add conditions to the approval, he would be open to that. <br /> Kirchner asked how approving and adding conditions is any different than a denial and adding a <br /> recommendation to that. He said it seems just as manipulative to use words in that manner. <br /> Chair Ressler noted he thinks they have gone down a rabbit hole before, because the Commissioners are <br /> not here to change the application on the fly, rather they must rule on what they have in front of them <br /> today. He thinks the comments and feedback are helpful. <br /> Mr. O'Connell said as a homeowner in this process, the optics appear to the homeowners as more positive <br /> to have an approval with conditions than a denial. They could be two different means to the same end, <br /> but optically, the Council seems more amenable saying you can do this but you have to fix this one thing, <br /> versus you can't do this until you fix this one thing. <br /> Chair Ressler does not entirely disagree with Mr. O'Connell,the Commission has been given some <br /> direction in the past—and it is nice to have the Mayor in the room—because he is going to lead the next <br /> meeting, so he is definitely hearing the feedback. The Commission has had feedback in the past that <br /> redesigning applications that are not in front of them become very difficult as far as what the <br /> recommendation is. This is very cut and dry; it is going on the record as to what they would be agreeable <br /> to and if this motion carries to deny, it is essentially doing it the same way, it is allowing Mr. O'Connell <br /> to take that feedback and propose it as that feedback into the Council. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5 (Bollis, Gettman,Kirchner,McCutcheon,Ressler),Nays 2 (Erickson,Libby). <br /> 3. LA20-000071 JACOB STICKNEY, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH,VARIANCES. <br /> STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN <br /> Page 11 of 23 <br />