Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 20, 2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the changes help make it very clear what is allowed and that Staff recommends adoption of <br /> the proposed text amendment. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he understands what the policy is but that it says expansion may be provided that. <br /> Schoenzeit asked Staff to provide an example of a substandard nonconforming structure where <br /> Paragraph 1 would allow it if it is not. <br /> Thiesse stated the expansion cannot be there but has to be somewhere else on the house that did not cause <br /> a greater nonconformity. <br /> Gaffron stated if someone wants to expand the structure in an area that is currently conforming,they <br /> would not be allowed to make it nonconforming. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a very important piece of code and that the current language could <br /> allow someone to bypass the regulation. <br /> Gaffron stated there are other cities that do allow someone to go up from an existing substandard setback <br /> or keep the same close to the line setback. Gaffron stated those things in the past have had to go to a <br /> variance process and that this clarifies that it does indeed have to go through a variance process. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the residents are expecting the City to have this code in place to protect <br /> them from their neighbors. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view the word not should be crossed out in Paragraph bl. <br /> Gaffron stated then it would read that a person can do it if the expansion does not occupy any space <br /> within a nonconforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally. Gaffron <br /> stated Commissioner Thiesse is correct. <br /> Lemke stated under No. 3 it says, any addition of a site feature such as a deck,patio, etc. Lemke asked if <br /> they could add something like similar site feature at the end of that sentence to address other areas that <br /> they have not thought of. <br /> Gaffron indicated Staff can do that. Gaffron stated it could read: Any addition of a site feature such a <br /> deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool, or additional site features such as but not <br /> limited to. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if this ardinance would make obtaining a variance harder. <br /> Gaffron stated not in 17is view and that the language is just defining current practice. Staff will be able to <br /> point to a piece of code that makes it very clear as opposed to saying that is how the City has always done <br /> it. <br /> Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at p.m. <br /> Page 21 of 25 <br />