Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 21,2001 <br /> (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) <br /> Weinberger stated he would prefer the Planning Commission make a recommendation on both parts of <br /> this application rather than tabling one part of it. <br /> Stoddard reiterated he would be willing to approve the second part of the application but that he would <br /> prefer to get some input from the City Council on the first part before acting on it. Stoddard stated he <br /> would be hesitant to approve the first part of the application given the small size of the lot and the <br /> zoning requirements for this area. <br /> Weinberger stated both options would be presented to the Council. <br /> Kluth commented the Planning Commission has only been presented with one example of what might <br /> be a similar situation, with Staff indicating that there might be other examples that exist on both sides <br /> over the years regarding other similar properties. Kluth stated in his view the Planning Commission <br /> should look at this application in today's terms and look at recent precedent and how the City Council <br /> would deal with this. <br /> Smith stated if part one of the application were approved,the Applicant would be looking at some <br /> very severe restrictions on what could be constructed on the property due to the small size of the lot. <br /> Kluth inquired if this property were deemed to be buildable, whether they would be retroactively <br /> assessed the sewer charge. <br /> Gaffron stated they would be. <br /> Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to table part one of the application or have <br /> the Planning Commission act on both parts tonight. Stoddard noted he probably would not be in <br /> support of approving part one at this time. Stoddard stated if part one was tabled,that may allow the <br /> Applicant time to conduct further research to determine whether other similar applications have been <br /> approved in the past. <br /> Roesler stated she would like the Planning Commission to act on both parts of her application tonight. <br /> Berg stated if the two lots were combined,the Applicant would not be able to build on the lakeshore <br /> lot. Berg stated the Applicant could build on the back lot. <br /> Smith commented the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them tonight and not what <br /> happened twenty some years ago. <br /> Stoddard noted Orono's Comprehensive Plan has changed over those 28 years. <br /> Waldron stated he understands it is the City's desire not to have residences constructed on these 50 <br /> foot lots, but the point that the Applicant is making is that this application cannot be looked at in <br /> isolation due to the history of the other similar lot and that the applicable ordinances have not changed. <br /> Waldron stated this is the exact same fact situation and exact same request and exact same ordinances <br /> as that situation which existed a number of years. Waldron stated they would like the City to explain <br /> how they differ. <br /> PAGE 14 <br />