Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Mr. Krump replied that is correct. <br /> Erickson pointed out it makes a lot of sense to flip it the way Mr. Krump is suggesting because on the <br /> south side is the public park with a big soccer field and no neighbors. <br /> Deborah Krump, 25 Stubbs Bay Road,brought up the other road that nobody is using and said why can't <br /> they figure out from the people that own that property, if they can make that lot bigger and go more <br /> toward the park to give the Krumps some space because this is really close. She said Mr. Krump has <br /> maintained this property for 35 years for the Dunns and to turn around and have somebody sitting on their <br /> deck with them is kind of tough. She said if the Applicant wanted to look at something like that, it would <br /> be huge for the Krumps. She noted it is a crazy request,but she is going to request it. <br /> Chair Ressler appreciates her going on the record and of course the public hearing has been closed,but <br /> they can put that in to note because he thinks that is important to know. He said if Ms. Krump wanted to <br /> be more formal, she could write a letter of support or what would be agreeable to them to put in front of <br /> the Council when they entertain the application, as well. <br /> Chair Ressler asked Ms. Oakden if it is correct that as applied,they have 15.5 foot setback to the north, <br /> guided for 50 feet; 18.2 foot setback to the south, guided for 50 feet. <br /> Ms. Oakden replied that is correct. <br /> Chair Ressler noted that is as applied and is what the Commission needs to rule on today. <br /> Ms. Oakden replied yes, they must review as the application sits today in front of them. <br /> Libby said this could be one of their tougher ones in a while,but he welcomes a challenge. There aren't <br /> really too many options, but the idea of the fact that there is a plan, an active transactional motivation— <br /> motivated buyer, motivated seller—a house plan that should be able to fit in to these setbacks...it prompts <br /> him to be in favor of this. If the plan does not vary, and he does not think Mr. Stickney plans on a bait <br /> and switch because he never has in the past. He would tend to be in favor of this and agree with the <br /> recommendations of Staff. <br /> Kirchner agrees,he was in support of it and believes it to be appropriate for the area,however,hearing the <br /> discussion from the neighbors to the north and that the neighbors to the south could never build on that <br /> portion of the flag lot, as they would be right back before the Commission for the same discussion. He <br /> does not think the house is overbearing or that it is an unreasonable request. However, knowing that the <br /> neighbors to the north are not supportive of it,he does not believe that he can approve it knowing that <br /> there are other options on the table. He noted he is not here to redesign the plan or survey so he will leave <br /> it at that. <br /> Bollis is in favor of it,he thinks it is substantially similar to the other lot to the north. He is not sure what <br /> else they could approve to be built on that lot. Obviously the proposed area,where it would fall under the <br /> setbacks, cannot be done, so he thinks it is very consistent with the neighborhood. He does not think the <br /> Commission can go above and beyond looking at other options as far as purchasing other peoples' <br /> property to make it conforming; they just have to look at it how it is today. <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br />