02-20-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pr— MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16,1996 (#4 - #2099 Loren Brueggemann - Continued) Schroeder agreed with Smith and Lindquist. Gafiron commented that the cabins were curremly rented. He added that the Council had given direction some time ago allowing a fair period of time, two years, to continue the cabin rental with no need to temporarily connect to sewer, but with the main house sewer connection required, which has not been done. Scinoeder said the hardships do not merit the number of variances r^uested. Proveau sud that Maeser expressed concern with the sewer hookup issue. He noted that the financial benefits of cabin rental were significant to Maeser*s ability to owning the property. Proveau said if the sale of the property were to fall through, Maeser would request the cabin be hooked up to sewer. Proveau asked that options be considered to en^le Maeser to homestead the property noting that the code was the cause in the decline of the market value of the property. Lindquist responded that he had a problem with splitting up a 2-acre parcel in the 2 acre zoning district. Smith suggested the possibility of purchasing additional property from the owner to the north. Gaflfron said there was probably not enough land to do that; but with one lot only, a portion right be sold to that neighbor to increase his lot size. Brueggemann said the feasibility of a sale of any land to or from the neighbor to the north was slim. Gaffron said the neighborhood redevelopment process, by which two lots would be purchased together to create a more conforming single building site, is a slow process. Mabusth noted that even if the area was re-zoned to 1 acre, variances would still be required. There would still be the need for a total of 2-1/2 acres including the outlot, ret^ting in a half acre shortage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they would prefer the application be voted on or tabled. Brueggemann inquired about a joint session between the Council and Planning Commission to discuss the sketch plan. Gaffron said the application had not been discussed in the joint session though it was previously suggested that a discussion ensue regarding the sketch plan. Gaffron informed the applicant of the 60 day time frame for review of any application, and noted that the applicant needed to agree to tabling the application or the Planning Commission would have to vote on it now. Brueggemann asked that the application be voted on and carried forward to the Council. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to deny approval of Application #2099 as the hardships do not justify the variances required for the subdivision as outlined in the memo. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.