Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMIHSSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15r 1985 PAGE 3 <br />1908 JON SCBBRVBM Taylor suggested using the same conditions as in the Beck <br />Resolution 11687 as follows; <br />1. The guest apartment is for use of family members only. <br />2. This guest apartment use may not be convoyed to any <br />purchaser of the property. <br />3. The guest apartment may not be rented out. <br />4. This use is subject to City review at the end of four <br />years. <br />Jon Scherven stated that he will need more than four years as <br />his parents plan to retire there. Scherven noted that the <br />house needs upgrading and he proposes to do that. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked if there was a separate <br />entrance to the guest apartment use. <br />Jon Scherven stated that there is the main entrance to the <br />vestibule and then a door leading downstairs and a door <br />leading to the upper level of the house. <br />Rovegno noted that thi s would be like a duplex on a quarter of <br />an acre. Rovengo felt that this was not enough area. <br />Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. <br />Taylor move, Sime seconded, to recommend approval of the <br />variance based on the hardship of the location of the <br />existing building and that such approval of variance is <br />subject to removal of an equivalent amount of existing <br />hardcover and the deck may not have concrete underneath the <br />deck if it extends into the 0-75' setback area and to further <br />recommend that the applicant be required to pay the fee for a <br />conditional use permit subject to the following; <br />1. The guest apartment is for use of f amily members only. <br />2. Th; s guest apartment use may not be conveyed to a <br />purchaser of the property. <br />3. The guest apartment may not be rented out and such to be <br />confirmed by staff yearly. <br />4. This use is subject to City review at the end of four <br />years. <br />Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (1). Planning Commission member <br />Rovegno voted nay. Rovegno felt that the property did not <br />have adequate area to support a second dwelling unit.