06-16-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#9 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is seeking a height variance to allow for construction of an accessory structure that would provide storage for his business, an office, and bathroom. There is considerable distance between the residence and proposed accessory structure. The applicant has also applied for a home occupation license. Code requires an accessory structure to be the same height or lower than the principal structure. The residence was built in the late 1800's and is short in stature. Van Zomeren noted that the principal structure docs not have an attached garage. Van Zomeren agreed that the height variance makes sense but resolution of the home occupation license must first occur. Lindquist informed the applicant that no action will be taken on this application due to the home occupation licensing issue. He asked for applicant's comments. Hotzer said the distance between the two structures is to maintain the chruaaer of the house which has a shallow pitched roof. He would like to add on to the home at some time in the future. Lindquist noted that a bathroom is also not allowed in an accessory structure. Holzer said he is self-employed and would also use the space for ffisplayiitg of a collection and office. The main purpose is to store his plumbing equipment. Lindquist informed Holzer that he would probably have a problem with running the business firam his home. Holzer question^ where the line is drawn from that of a s^es person uang garage for storage of business items. Lindquist advised Holzer to attend the work session regarding home occupation. Smith noted that if the applicant was using the space for storing cars it would not present a problem. She noted the number of oversized garages and guest houses in Orono. McMillan noted that economic hardship is not a valid reason for requesting a variance. Stoddard indicated that the work session wili re\new the differences in how people now conduct business. He noted that aesthetics and use are key issues. He asked how large the accessory structure would be. When informed of the size, 1200 s.f, Stoddard si uod a variance would be required fi’om the 1000 s.f allowable. Lindquist reported that the two issues are the size of the accessory structure requiring a CUP and home occupation license. Van Zomeren said the application requested a variance approval only and the CUP would have to be reviewed.