My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-15-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
12-15-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 11:15:44 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 11:12:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^ORK SESSION <br />MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15,1997 <br />(#5 Horn* Occupation, Continued) <br />Van Zomeren cited an example of a home occupation license It includes a compliance deadline, <br />hours of operation, number of clients, and shipment and delivery. A use can be lawful non- <br />conforming until such date and then become unlawful non-conforming Schroeder noted the need <br />to have "teeth" in the ordinance. <br />Schroeder asked how many complaints are received on home occupations Gaffron said he <br />receives a few a year but gets many calls on starting businesses. Schroeder noted many <br />businesses are started without licensing Van Zomeren said many business owners do not know <br />they must license their business. <br />(#6) 1998 APPLICATION FORMS <br />The tracking sheet is included in this information Van Zomeren said information packets will be <br />mailed on Wednesdays in the future She indicated that the legal notice drives everything from a <br />staff standpoint. <br />Schroeder voiced approval with the need for applicants to provide all necessary information by a <br />particular date for review to occur. The 60 day time frame begins from the date of filing Smith <br />sakJ the time frame assumes all information is provided. Gaffron questioned whether the waiver <br />takes away from the right of an applicant to receive a conclusion to their application within the 60 <br />time frame. Van Zomeren said no, the applicant was only being put on notice It does not refer to <br />a waiver. Van Zomeren emphasized that the applicant risks submitting applications on the <br />deadline date as all information must be complete. Van Zomeren said the survey submittal needs <br />to be reviewed. <br />Hawn askeo if the $150 renewal is per variance or total. Gaffron said he would need to review it <br />but it probably is $150 total. <br />Smith suggested an introduction letter be included She asked to see the final form and <br />suggested color coding the application Gaffron said the statement shows what is needed. Smith <br />said lines should be provided. <br />Pages 10, 11. and 12 were satisfactory to the Commission <br />Smith suggested giving definitions and examples of hardships Schroeder did not believe giving <br />examples would help McMillan suggested applicants speak with staff about any questions they <br />may have regarding h-^rdship Gaffron indicated that staff writes the majority of the hardships. <br />Hawn asked how the applicant is to determine who to contact for hardcover calculations and <br />survey. Gaffron said they are informed to contact a surveyor He noted the difficulty in providing <br />accurate information. Hawn suggested a work sheet be included.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.