Laserfiche WebLink
LVANUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXDSSION <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13. |P05 <br />(#8 - <<2062 Ted Rozeboonv'Josephine Knudscn - Continued) <br />Gaffron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the fact that the properties are <br />adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists between the two parties invoked. <br />The property at 2%5 Casco would not be owned by the person conducting an occupation <br />there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility of clients <br />coining to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility of a third party using <br />tlw upper residential space This would then seem to appear as a mixed <br />readentiat'commercial use and then possibly be a use variance <br />Gaffron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the <br />family relationship, then the appearance of a use variance still exists if the lots are <br />separately owned and not combined If both properties were owned by Rozcboom but not <br />combined, it may be closer to the appearance of a home occupation Finally, with legal <br />combination, this is imich more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with <br />performance standard variances Variance approval does require findings of hardship <br />Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires <br />the person running the business to live in that dwelling Peterson said he would vote to <br />deny the application <br />Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home <br />occupation use He was told it did not Rozeboom said he could change the reudence at <br />2965 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would hav’c any b«uing on the approval cr <br />denial He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he <br />would not Rozeboom said he w as an architectural consultant and the purpose of this <br />proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother-in-law to live. Rozeboom said if he <br />combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties. <br />Peterson said he would not consider changing the ordinance, to which Lindquist a^eed. <br />Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose <br />value of the property by combining lots She saw no reason why the applicant could not <br />w ork out of ihe residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage house for his <br />own home at 2967 Casco <br />The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and <br />be reflective of the neighborhood and of a home. Schroeder commented that a hardcover <br />trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license. <br />There were no public comments.