Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, November 17, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE,2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Continued <br /> 2. Determine that the staff interpretation does not correctly reflect the Planning <br /> Commission's intent, and provide staff with direction to clarify and correct the resolution. <br /> 3. Reach no consensus as to whether the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to <br /> Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome). <br /> The applicants could, if they disagree with your conclusions, file for a new variance and <br /> attempt to demonstrate a hardship that would support the granting of variances. In staff's <br /> opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the place of a new variance application. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she recalled discussion regarding the removal of <br /> staircases, which resulted in the applicants retaining the upper staircase and retaining wall, <br /> removing the lower stairway, and keeping the concrete area. Upon revisiting the site once <br /> again, Mabusth stated that she felt the northern steps could be removed instead of the <br /> lower access steps. <br /> Mr. Zoschke stated that, in his recollection, he had asked to retain the lower steps and lean- <br /> to which were allowed in the discussion. <br /> Bremer concurred. <br /> Zoschke indicated that he would remove the walk going down to the lake once the northern <br /> stairway was removed. He maintained that the 681 s.f. figure was incorrect, since the <br /> removal of either staircase would fall short more than 100 square feet. <br /> Hawn pointed out that the appeal could only be based on comments from Commissioners <br /> who were present at that previous meeting. <br /> Gaffron concurred, stating that only the people who were in attendance at that meeting <br /> should address whether the resolution represents what was intended. He asked if the <br /> Commission agreed that the 681 s.f. figure was the correct number. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth agreed that the 681 s.f. figure could not be met in any combination. <br /> Rahn questioned where the 681 s.f. figure had come from, whether it was a combination of <br /> all the concrete patios on the property, or who had come up with that number. <br /> Gaffron stated that staff could easily recalculate the square footage to come up with an <br /> appropriate number if the Commission could agree upon which things were meant to be <br /> removed. He stated that the hardcover calculation worksheet is most often completed by <br /> PAGE 18 of 41 <br />