Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, March 17, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued) <br /> Hawn pointed out that, while the Commission would likely grant variances, they would <br /> prefer to see specific plans for the lot. She reiterated that the Commission could not <br /> approve the application without seeing some kind of accurate plan. <br /> Lanning stated that she had been working on this application for months and plans to move <br /> to California next week. She noted that the buyer does not want to go to the expense of <br /> providing plans before he purchases the property. <br /> Chair Smith suggested the Commission grant all but the average lakeshore setback <br /> variance. <br /> Councilman Sansevere stated that it is a matter of comfort level. He indicated that the <br /> Commission and City Council are not comfortable approving an application without <br /> specific plans before them. He questioned why the buyer had not accompanied her, and <br /> felt it was unfair of the buyer to allow her to carry the entire burden alone. In most <br /> situations, Sansevere indicated that,potential buyers come before the Commission <br /> themselves to have their questions heard. <br /> Berg stated that, as a construction lender, in contingency offers, most often the buyer is the <br /> one who comes before the various Commissions. <br /> Lanning stated that the buyer had told her that the City would provide her with the <br /> limitations of what could be built on the property. She asked if she could get approvals for <br /> the footprint at this time. <br /> Rahn stated that, in his opinion, her neighbors didn't have a big gripe with her and merely <br /> voiced their concerns with regard to height. He maintained that the current elevations <br /> included in the packet don't do her justice or work in her favor to this end. <br /> Hawn questioned whether the neighbors could live with a 30' height limitation versus a <br /> potentially 34-36' height building, in its current average lakeshore encroachment position. <br /> Gaffron stated that,what he has heard, is that the neighbors have a problem with the 30' <br /> wall at the newly proposed location. It is not a matter of 30' versus 34', it is an <br /> encroachment at either height. <br /> Rahman asked if the home could be slid back 5' to the original average lakeshore setback. <br /> Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application and the applicant invite the <br /> potential buyer to accompany her next month to discuss their options. <br /> PAGE 15 of 24 <br />