Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, January 22, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON, Continued) <br /> The Commissioners agreed they would not want to revisit the application. <br /> Rahn questioned what would be done, if in fact,the house was demolished,would staff recommend it be <br /> pushed back 15' on the property to meet a 30' front yard setback. <br /> Gaffron stated they would still need to meet a 30' rear setback, and agreed to better meet setbacks the <br /> home would need to be pushed back. <br /> In all of the Commission's discussions of what constitutes new construction,Hawn maintained that this <br /> application falls squarely within the center of the discussion. Admittedly, the standards have not been <br /> codified. <br /> Zugschwert pointed out that the fact that the standards have not been codified is the problem. Faced with <br /> many applicants who have spent money to design plans, she asked what the Commissioners can expect <br /> when they themselves can't differentiate between a remodel and new construction. She felt it too <br /> overbearing at this point to impose a new standard on this applicant. <br /> Retterath pointed out that, in his experience,this is the first time he had ever been exposed to this sort of <br /> invisible fine line that exists between a remodel and new construction. <br /> Because it is not codified, Gaffron stated there is not really any standard they can bring up,however, over <br /> the past six months the Planning Commission has had several discussions about where the threshold is. <br /> He explained that this issue is brought up perhaps three times a year when an applicant wants to remodel <br /> rather than tear down and rebuild an existing home, and it ends up being much more than first proposed. <br /> Clearly, Gaffron stated they need to address all of the issues. While they have addressed the setback, <br /> Gaffron felt they should further address the tear down in a substandard setback and the need for a <br /> variance. <br /> Mr. Walden stated that, while the Planning Commission might be inclined to label a project new <br /> construction when a 50%remodel has been submitted,this assumption may not apply to this application. <br /> He maintained that it is not the applicant's fault when an inspector comes in and tells an applicant during <br /> the remodeling process to remove or change something. <br /> Rahn indicated that was the difference between a remodel complete rebuild and a new construction. <br /> Walden felt there was a difference between an applicant who attempts to start a project one way, as does <br /> this applicant, and an applicant who misleads the Commission by intending to do more than proposed. <br /> Thompson maintained that he had invested a great deal of money and time into ripping into his home to <br /> see what he had and could be salvaged. He argued that others may not know what they have to begin <br /> with,therefore are surprised midway through a project. Thompson maintained that his application was <br /> correct in that this would be a first floor remodel with a second story addition. <br /> Chair Smith asked if there was anything further staff could do to look at his property, or his investigation <br /> of his property, to determine he can do what he has proposed. <br /> PAGE 22 of 29 <br />