Laserfiche WebLink
k'- <br />\: <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 <br />(#7)ZONING FILE #1642-SWANSON CONTINUED <br />negate the use of the alternate drainfield." <br />Bellov;s referred to Gaffron's notation in his memo that this <br />property is located across the street from property that is zoned <br />two acres. She suggested that such a reference not be made in <br />any other documents as it may place the City in a precarious <br />situc-wion. Bellows also indicated that she was having a <br />difficult time with this application. She said, "I am pleased <br />with the aspect of combining the two lots. However..." <br />Kelley agreed with Bellows that the Planning Commission <br />consistently takes the stand that new construction must conform <br />to all aspects of the Zoning Code. He said, "In this case, the <br />applicant has acquired additional property because he had a <br />deficient lot. He is doubling the amount of acreage and by doing <br />so, is providing a primary and alternate drainfield site." <br />Bellows said, "However, the lot size is still less than 50% <br />of what the Zoning District requires." <br />Cohen said, "I look at it this way. The applicant has no <br />alternatives. He has exercised the only alternative he could, <br />which was acquiring additional property. I will give the <br />applicant the benefit of the doubt, and agree that the lot is <br />just slightly in excess of two acres. Though this property is <br />located in what is now a five acre Zoning District, I would tend <br />to look at it more from the standpoint of conforming to the two <br />acre Zoning District requirements. The neighbors seem to be in <br />favor of Mr. Swanson's plans." <br />Johnson asked Gaffron whether it would be possible for the <br />Stubbs Bay sewer line to ever serve this property in the future. <br />Gaffron replied, "If the Stubbs Bay sewer line ever goes in, <br />it would certainly seem technically feasible to serve this <br />property with sewer by gravity sometime in the future." <br />Gaffron noted that if the applicants undergo a Torrens <br />Proceeding to clear up the discrepancy with the lot line, it may <br />take some time. He asked the Planning Commission whether the lot <br />line issue will have any bearing on their recommendation. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the ten <br />foot discrepancy would have no effect on their recommendation. <br />Moos added that she is more concerned about providing adequate <br />space between the house and the drainfield sites. <br />Johnson stated that the applicant could have come forward <br />with a Variance request to double the square footage of the <br />existing house, without having purchased the additional property. <br />He said, "It is possible that he would have been granted that <br />- 9 - <br />1 <br />1 <br />■■kiiir'