02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING cdacs<Uy« JaaMary’ 2L 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (IW2-2861 EIUK THOMPSON, CoallBiicd) The Conmiissioncrs agreed they would not want to rcMsit the application. Rahn questioned what would be done, if in fact, the house was demolished, would staff recommend it he pushed back 15 ’ on the property to meet a 30’ front yard setback. GaiTron stated they would still need to meet a 30* rear setback, and agreed to bener meet scibacks the home would need to be pushed back. In all of the Commission’s discussions of w hat constitutes new construction. Hawn maintained that this application falls squarely within the center of the discussion. Admittedly, the standards have not been codified. Zugschwert pointed out that the fact that the standards have not been codified is the problem. Faced with many applicants who have spent money to desij^ plans, she asked what the Commissioners can evpcct when they themselves can't differentiate between a remodel and new construction. She felt it too overbearing at this point to impose a new standard on this applicant Retterath pointed out that, in his experience, thi.- is the first time he had ever been exposed to this sort of invisible fine line that exists between a remodel and new construction Because it is not codified. Ciaffron stated there is not really any standard ihey can bring up. however, over the past SIX months the Planning Commission has had several discussions about where the threshold is. He explained that this issue is brought up perhaps three times car when an applicant wants to rcmt>dcl rather than tear down and rebuild an existing home, and it ends up being much more than first proposed Clearly. Gaffron staled they need to address all of the issues. While they have addressed the setback. Gaffron felt they should further address the tear down in a substandard setback and ihe need for a vanance. Mr. Walden staled that, while the Planning Commission might be inclined to label a project new construction when a 50"/i remodel has been submitted, this assumption may not apply to this application He maintained that it is not the applicant's fault when an inspector comes in and tells an applicant during the remodeling process to remove or change something. Rahn indicated that was the din'ercnce between a remodel complete rebuild and a new construction Walden felt there was a difference between an applicant who attempts to ‘’art a project one way. as docs this applicant, and an applicant who misleads the Commission by intending to do more than proposed Thompson maintained that he had invested a great deal of money and time into ripping into his home to sec what he had and could be salvaged. He argued that others may not know what they have to begin with, therefore arc surprised midway through a project. Thompson maintained that his application was correct in that this would be a first floor remodel with a second story addition. Chair Smith asked if there was anything further staff could do to look at his property, or his invcMigation of his property . to detcnninc he can do w hat he has proposed. PAGE 22 of 29