Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, February 19, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) <br /> Dr. Gumnit's representative reiterated that the roadway was not new construction, it has <br /> deteriorated over time and use and the applicant wishes to continue using it. <br /> In an effort to keep the hill as natural as possible, Dr. Gumnit stated that he would need to <br /> get access to it with his maintenance equipment. <br /> According to Berg, this use should not be on this island, she did not find adequate hardship <br /> to allow this use on this part of the property. <br /> Rahn stated that repairing the path would be acceptable, however, building a roadway <br /> would not. He believed the area was not conducive to what was being proposed and the <br /> Codes should act as the Commission's guide to that conclusion. <br /> Bremer agreed with Rahn. <br /> Mabusth agreed that adequate land existed elsewhere to support this activity. <br /> Chair Smith suggested that applicant consider other locations for the horses and pen near <br /> the house, while still using the island for riding. <br /> Dr. Gumnit asked the Commission to table his application to see if he could come back <br /> with an alternative plan. <br /> Chair Smith suggested that he use this time to visit the people whose letters were received <br /> by the City in order to address their concerns as well. She thanked the applicant for being <br /> forthright and open to discussion. <br /> Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend that Application #03-2869, <br /> Dr. Robert Gumnit, 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road, be tabled in order to allow the <br /> applicant further time to investigate alternatives. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> (#7) #03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, 1214 WILDHURST TRAIL, <br /> AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE 10:04- 10:45 P.M. <br /> Sally and Dan Weatherly, the Applicants, and Brian Novak, Architect, were present. <br /> Bottenberg reported that the applicants were requesting two after-the-fact variances for a <br /> newly constructed single family residence. The first variance would be to allow the <br /> foundation of the newly constructed residence to be located 9 1/2' from the side property <br /> line where 10' is required. The second variance would be allow the eaves to encroach into <br /> the side yard setback. <br /> PAGE 22 of 26 <br />