07-16-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILK.CONTINl'FD) Weinberger stated he uould prefer the Planning Commission make a recommendation on both parts of this application rather than tabling one part of it. Stoddard a*itcrated he would be willing to approve the second part of the application but that he would prefer to get some input from the Cii> Council on the first part before acting on it. SiixJdard staled he would be hesitant to approve the first part of the application given the small si/e of the lot and the zoning requirements for this area. Weinberger staled both options would be presented to the Council. Klulh commented the Planning Commission has only been presented with one example of what might be a similar situation, with SialT indicating that there might be other c.xamples that exist on both sides over the years regarding other similar pn>perties. Kluth stated in his v iew the Planning Commission should look at this applicalim in today's terms and lix>k at recent precedent and how the City Council would deal w ith this. Smith staled if part one of the application were approv ed. the Applicant would be kH'king ut s«nnc very severe restrictions on what could be constructed on the property due to the small size of the lot. Klulh inquired if this property were deemed to be buildable, whether they would be retroactively assessed llte sewer charge. GalTron slated lliey would be. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to table part one of the application or have the Planning Commission act on Ksth parts tonight. Stixldard noted he probably would not be in support of approving part one at this lime. Stoddard stated if part one was tabled, that may allow the .Applicant time to conduct further research to determine whether other similar applications have Iven approved in the p,nst. Koesicr slated sne would like tlic Planning Commission to act on both ports of her application toniglit. Berg stated if the two lots were combined, the Applicant would not be able *o build on the lakeshore lot. Berg slated the Applicant could build on the back lot. Smith commented the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them tonight and not what happened twenty s*imc years ago Stoddard noted Orono's Comprehensive Plan has changed over those 28 years. W'aldron stated he understands it is the City 's desire not to have residences constructed on these 50 fool lots, but the point that the Applicant is making is that this application cannot be looked at in isohition due to the history of the other similar lot and that the applicable ordinances have not changed. Waldron stated this is the exact same fact situation and exact same request and exact same ordinances os that situation w hich existed a number of years. Waldron staled they would like the City to explain how they differ. PAGE 14