Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding the application. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon thinks Mr. Schmidt has a point and does not think the Planning Commission would have <br /> said anything previously. The main thing to him is that it is in the building envelope and he hates to split <br /> hairs but asked if the neighbors complained or had comments. <br /> Ms. Oakden noted the Applicant submitted signatures from the neighbors with the neighbor <br /> acknowledgement form. <br /> McCutcheon said in hindsight,the chimney is very tall and is at the closest point to the neighbor and <br /> maybe the Planning Commission would have said something. He is interested in the rest of the <br /> discussion; it is in the building envelope so the main question here is the sightlines from the neighbors <br /> and they did not submit any comments. He thinks the main thing is the neighbors being able to view the <br /> lake and if they do not have an opinion on the matter,he thinks he would favor the Applicant for the <br /> variance. <br /> Kirchner related this one back to the garage or accessory structure where the roof trusses would go above <br /> and beyond into the ALS the Planning Commission saw within the last 4-5 months. He distinctly <br /> remembers the Applicant was asking for more than what the building code was requiring of those trusses; <br /> in this case as demonstrated by the Applicant,the height of this is to satisfy the building code <br /> requirements being a 10-foot distance away and a two-foot height from that ten-foot mark of other roofing <br /> structures. Based on that, as well as McCutcheon's statements,Kirchner would likely be supportive of it. <br /> Chair Ressler agrees with Kirchner and that is where his line of questions came from: whether this was a <br /> vanity choice or a necessity of function. It is unfortunate they are in the place they are in but when he <br /> looks at whether he would have declined the application if this was in there in the first place,that is not <br /> how they like to do it but it is a good validator for his conscience. He does not see any problem with it. <br /> McCutcheon moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-77,2967 Casco Point Road,Variance as <br /> applied. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 5. LA21-01 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS(STAFF: <br /> JEREMY BARNHART) <br /> Barnhart noted any resident has the right to appeal the decision by any member of the City Staff and any <br /> board decision. That does currently apply to those that are facing action through code enforcement <br /> process and that is not the appropriate mechanism to review those. This proposed text amendment <br /> clarifies that if one is going to appeal a decision from a zoning code enforcement official,the process to <br /> do that is through the legal system,working with a prosecuting attorney and if necessary,the County <br /> court system. This ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney and he recommends approval. The only <br /> change is it clarifies the appeal process for those actions related to code enforcement. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. <br /> Page 25 of 28 <br />