Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 20, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#12) #03-2958 JUDSONDAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued <br /> Gaffron suggested the applicants combine lot 3 with the homestead, although it would not <br /> necessarily be keeping in line with the original intent of the variance. <br /> Rahn asked what code stated for the presence of multiple oversize accessory structures. <br /> Gaffron indicated that property owners are not allowed to keep 2 oversize structures on the <br /> same property, even if combined, acknowledging that this would be the case in this <br /> scenario. <br /> Rahn pointed out that once the barn is lifted and moved to a new location it may also have <br /> to meet other standards as well. <br /> Hawn asked if the applicant had considered building a small principal structure on the <br /> property or constructing living quarters within the barn. <br /> Dayton stated that this was doubtful. He commented that he would hate to lose one of the <br /> few remaining old barns to more development. <br /> Waataja stated that the barn was approximately 1,104 s.f. in size. <br /> Hoyt pointed out that the neighborhood homeowners association would not approve of the <br /> barn becoming living quarters. He reiterated that it was the neighbors understanding that <br /> the old barn would be removed. <br /> Chair Smith asked what other stipulations the homeowners association can make. <br /> Hoyt stated that the association must grant architectural approval for construction of a new <br /> home. <br /> Chair Smith asked what direction the Commission should pursue, since new issues might <br /> arise with the combination of the lots. <br /> Hawn suggested the barn be moved to one of the Dayton's other vacant lots. <br /> Dayton stated that he would take this under consideration and would like to comply with <br /> the neighbors request to move it off the property line. <br /> Gaffron stated that, once the two lots were combined, the applicants might then be forced <br /> to apply for a second variance to allow for a second oversize structure on the property. In <br /> addition, further consideration would need to be given to height restrictions. <br /> Page 27 of 29 <br />