12-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15,1997 (#2 Variance Report, Continued) in Mound have increased with the hardcover regulations added Smith noted that while the code is restrictive, the opportunity to get variance approval is good so residents take the chance. Stoddard felt Staff and Commission were in agreement over issues but felt there may be issues that should be reviewed by the Commission. Schroeder noted that all residents have the right to file for a variance Gaffron voiced concern that if residents are informed of the standard and yet understand changes can be made to that standard, what then is the standard Smith asked if there were variances where restrictions may be too tight but still be in keeping with the code. Gaffron said that might be a possibility but is limited He does not believe a side variance should ever be allowed on a small lot Smith reviewed that there are four choices that can be made: The Comprehensive Plan can be revised: the code can be made less restrictive, no changes made; or deny variance requests for areas that are cut and dried. Van Zomeren noted that the State law requires a hardship be shown to allow a variance Lindquist brought fonward the issue of lake lots. Van Zomeren asked if the goal is to intensify tots, noting lots with small cabins being replaced with large homes Lindquist said the 1500 s.f. allowance for structural coverage can be adhered to on these substandard lots Schroeder questioned why a harder stand would be taken regarding variances now. Smith said it would show consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Schroeder felt the 1500 s.f. allowance for structural coverage is consistent with tne Comprehensive Plan He noted, however, that variances are worth money to the residents in terms of value to the property. Lindquist asked if changes should be made or maintain standards currently followed. Schroeder felt the Council should be consulted. Hawn said if all agree to the conclusions drawn, then the Planning Commission should vote in that manner. McMilian noted the need to define hardship in applications Lindquist indicated if the Council is in agreement with the Commission 80% of the time, the Commission can make the effort to hold firm to the ordinances. Schroeder questioned whether any of the ordinances are irrelevant. He noted that in order to take a firmer stand, the Commission should debate the relevancy of the ordinances Gaffron cited the average lakeshore setback variance may be one that could be changed and brought before the Commission only when there is an impact. Lindquist asked what happens if the ordinance requires the application be presented to the Planning Commission Gaffron said the ordinance would then need revision. Smith asked if the Planning Commission could make use of a consent agenda Gaffron said this is not possible due to due diligence Hawn noted the audience could be polled Gaffron questioned if the Commission defines those variances that are going to be approved, are those ordinances necessary Hawn said it was a matter of saving time Lindquist suggested such applications be placed first on the agenda rather than going by application number. —9--.. .n — -f- -. -1- -I’t'>»ir