Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 <br />(#3) HOME OCCUPATIONS - AMENDING DEFINITION AND <br />PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS - 7:56-8:00 P.M, <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Van Zomeren suggested to Lindquist that this item be tabled due to the need for additional <br />information She noted agenda item #9 is affected by the home occupation licensing. <br />Lindquist informed Mr. Holzer that his application would likely be tabled due to the need <br />for the Comnussion to further discuss this issue. He asked that Mr. Holzer present his <br />comments at that time. <br />Van Zomeren said she would like to present the benefits of home occupation licensing, use <br />of accessory structui es, employees, and zoning ordinance list of allowed occupations. <br />This item includes many issues that will require further discussion. <br />Lindquist suggested a work session be scheduled later in the meeting. <br />ACTION ITEMS <br />(#4) #2182 HERBERT TERRY OLSON, 3640 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCE <br />AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING <br />- 8:01-8:21 P.M. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Jane Olson reported that the application is for variances and conditional use permit to <br />rebuild the existing two car detached garage in the same location. <br />Van Zomeren indicated the accessory structure is located on a thru-lot with roads on both <br />sides. Maintaining the garage in this location requires a CUP. The variance is for <br />reducing the street setback from 50* to 9*. <br />The discussion from previous Planning Commission review is included. The garage was at <br />that time proposed for location 6' to the east but presented a problem with the sewer. Van <br />Zomeren reviewed the three options available as well as the previous recommendation. It <br />was noted that this proposal presents a different replacement situation but does not meet <br />the hardship criteria. Lake views would be impacted if the garage was located elsewhere <br />on the property. The length of the driveway is not considered a hardship. <br />Mrs. Olson had no additional comments at this time. <br />Smith clarified that the intention of the applicant is to rebuild the garage as is currently <br />stands.