Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />L- <br />MINUTES OK THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />«03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued) <br />While Mabuslh recognized the dilemma the City had created by looking at rebuilds versus <br />construction, she questioned how setting this precedent without formal discussion with the <br />City Council would impact the process. <br />Cl.air Smith agreed, stating that a larger discussion was required than could be had this <br />evening with regard to variances for new construction versus rebuilds. She added that this <br />was the City ’s only opportunity to get the property into greater conformance with what is <br />currently required, since size is not an accepted hardship. She indicated that the applicant <br />could ask to be tabled, or they could ask for a motion, which would likely be for denial, in <br />order to make their argumcr: to City Council. <br />Wliilc he was not present at the last meeting, Hannaford felt the applicant had followed the <br />direction given by the Commission and that it would be unfair to deny the applicant’s <br />proposal. <br />MacDonald asked if the applicant would be penalized by a time restriction if they moved it <br />forward to Council and it were denied. <br />Gaffron indicated that, if the application moved forward with a recommendation for denial, <br />and the City Council chose to table the application for redesign, it w ould return before the <br />Planning Conunission. <br />Hawn and Ralm bolli indicated that the architect’s objections were a matter of policy and <br />the Ordinances would not be chartged in one niglit. <br />Bremer reiterated that, based on prior discussion, the Commission gave the applicants <br />direction, they met it, and now’ they arc being told they do not comply. She felt this w as <br />unfair. <br />MacDonald asked for a motion. <br />Haw n moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application ^03-2885, Ed and <br />Cerda Toth, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, due to the hardcover Issues in the 75 ’-250’ <br />setback zone. The Commission would recommend approval of the lot area, lot width, <br />and grading variance requests. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Bremer and Hannaford <br />dissenting. <br />Bremer and Hannaford disagreed, stating that tiic aoplicant had met the guidelines set forth <br />by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. <br />PAGE Hi of 39