Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />m <br />I <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1990 <br />ofZONING FILE #1603-JACOBS CONTINJED <br />Hanson said, "I gave this application quite a bit <br />consideration and am perhaps the minority here. I agree somewhat <br />with Maureen's comments relative to the structure itselt. <br />However, the property is effectively under the control of one <br />owner. I believe that there are exceptions to the basic planning <br />considerations to which we have a responsibility to adhere. Our <br />particular set of ordinances do not help us address properties of <br />this nature. Given the size of the parcel, if combined, I do not <br />object to this proposal." <br />Bellows compared this proposal to the Pillsbury application. <br />She said, "Though this parcel is larger in size, and therefore <br />less dense, the structure proposed is not in keeping with the <br />exceptional nature of this property. My inclination is to deny <br />this, or table it to allow the applicant time to bring back a <br />proposal for the combined properties. <br />Ms. Quinby stated that the greenhouse will be located far <br />enough back on the property so it will be virtually impossible to <br />see from the road. She said, "If it is necessary for us to <br />combine the properties in order to have a chance for approval^ I <br />would prefer that the matter be tabled." <br />There were no public comments regarding this application and <br />•che Public Hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to table <br />application #1603, Irwin Jacobs. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion <br />carried. <br />Ms. Quinby asked when this matter would be scheduled for <br />reviaw again. She said, "If I had known this was going to be <br />tabled for us to combine the properties, we would have done that <br />prior to this meeting." <br />Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to provide some <br />direction to the applicant. She said, "You have tabled this to <br />allow time for the applicant to combine the parcels. The <br />applicant has submitted a letter indicating his intention to do <br />that. What additional information would you like to see? What <br />were your other reasons for tabling?" <br />Kelley said, "By combining the parcels, the property owner <br />has more leverage." <br />Ms. Quinby reiterated that it has been Mr. Jacobs' intention <br />all along to combine the parcels. <br />Mabusth noted that it would be necessary to grant certain <br />Variances even if the parcels are combined. She asked the <br />Planning Commission why they are tabling this application. Sue <br />- 10 - <br />J