Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, May 19, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued) <br /> Since the Commission had viewed MacDonald's presentation the last time, Chair Smith <br /> encouraged him to be brief and focus on the portion of the presentation that focused on <br /> their specific hardship. <br /> MacDonald began reiterating that the overlay Ordinance is what has created the hardship <br /> for smaller lots. He pointed out that they had succeeded in removing all of the hardcover <br /> from the 0-75' setback zone, and reduced the hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 47%to <br /> 30%. <br /> Chair Smith asked if what MacDonald was really requesting would be that the Ordinance <br /> be revised from the existing 25% allowance. <br /> MacDonald noted that, while on a 2 acre lot in the zoning district, a 12,000 s.f home is <br /> more than ample, on a 50' lot, 25% creates a small `dog house'. He maintained that <br /> special consideration must be given to smaller lots and pointed out that Orono is one of the <br /> only lakes communities that subtracts the 0-75' from its hardcover equation. He shared <br /> what he believed to be applications in which variances for hardcover over 25%were <br /> granted. <br /> Chair Smith indicated that it was not up to the Commission to rewrite the variances this <br /> evening and suggested Mr. MacDonald hold conversations to that end with the City <br /> Council as well. <br /> While shape, grade, and drainage all constitute elements of hardships, Hawn stated that, <br /> unfortunately, size alone cannot constitute the hardship. She reminded the public that the <br /> variance and Ordinance process is not a perfect science and that, occasionally,mistakes are <br /> made. <br /> Bremer maintained that many of the applications cited by the architect were remodels, and <br /> not new construction, therefore the approvals for those variances may be misleading. <br /> Gaffron concurred, stating that the comparison of remodels to new construction was like <br /> comparing `apples to oranges'. <br /> MacDonald encouraged the Commission to look at the intent of the variance. He <br /> maintained that his applicant was proposing to create a better situation for the lots. He <br /> believed the City had gotten to a point of being too legalistic, and not considering each <br /> specific application on its own merits. Once again, he encouraged the Commission to <br /> weigh what would be best for the property versus the overall consequences of their <br /> decisions. <br /> PAGE 14 of 39 <br />