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 /> While Mabusth recognized the dilemma the City had created by looking at rebuilds versus <br /> construction, she questioned how setting this precedent without formal discussion with the <br /> City Council would impact the process. <br /> Chair Smith agreed, stating that a larger discussion was required than could be had this <br /> evening with regard to variances for new construction versus rebuilds. She added that this <br /> was the City's only opportunity to get the property into greater conformance with what is <br /> currently required, since size is not an accepted hardship. She indicated that the applicant <br /> could ask to be tabled, or they could ask for a motion, which would likely be for denial, in <br /> order to make their argument to City Council. <br /> While he was not present at the last meeting, Hannaford felt the applicant had followed the <br /> direction given by the Commission and that it would be unfair to deny the applicant's <br /> proposal. <br /> MacDonald asked if the applicant would be penalized by a time restriction if they moved it <br /> forward to Council and it were denied. <br /> Gaffron indicated that, if the application moved forward with a recommendation for denial, <br /> and the City Council chose to table the application for redesign, it would return before the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> Hawn and Rahn both indicated that the architect's objections were a matter of policy and <br /> the Ordinances would not be changed in one night. <br /> Bremer reiterated that,based on prior discussion, the Commission gave the applicants <br /> direction, they met it, and now they are being told they do not comply. She felt this was <br /> unfair. <br /> MacDonald asked for a motion. <br /> Hawn moved, Rahn seconded,to recommend denial of Application #03-2885, Ed and <br /> Gerda Toth, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, due to the hardcover issues in the 75'-250' <br /> setback zone. The Commission would recommend approval of the lot area, lot width, <br /> and grading variance requests. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2, Bremer and Hannaford <br /> dissenting. <br /> Bremer and Hannaford disagreed, stating that the applicant had met the guidelines set forth <br /> by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. <br /> PAGE 15 of 39 <br />