Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, November 17, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM <br /> ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, Continued <br /> lots were to be legally combined. Since they were not combined, and the City failed to <br /> follow up, the Commission should now address this issue. <br /> Pierpont stated that they would prefer to have two clearly distinct lots for their purposes <br /> and which could be assessed independently. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth asked what would stop the applicants from disregarding, once <br /> again, what the Commission recommends as a condition. As demonstrated by their failure <br /> to follow through on the initial agreement. In addition, Mabusth stated that her support <br /> would hinge upon the removal of the outer circular driveway. She asked whether the <br /> wetland posed a hardship of any kind for the applicants. <br /> As a condition of the rearrangement, Pierpont agreed to the removal of the outer driveway. <br /> Hawn stated that her reservations stem from the fact that the original CUP for the guest <br /> house would not have gone forward if the City and applicant would have followed the <br /> terms of the past agreement citing the combination as a condition of its approval. She <br /> maintained that the Code clearly states that applicants need 4 acres of dry buildable to have <br /> the guest house. She stated that if the applicants wish to retain the guest house structure, <br /> they must remove that which makes it a guest house, i.e. the kitchenette. <br /> Pierpont stated that she hadn't realized her husband had neglected to complete the legal <br /> combination until applying for this application. She pointed out that most of the wetland <br /> appears, to her, to be on her neighbor's property and not hers. <br /> Gaffron indicated that these were the numbers the City was supplied with and reflect 6 <br /> acres, one of which is wetland, supporting two structures and a guest house. <br /> Pierpont asked whether the fact that they plan to attach the guest house to their present <br /> home has any bearing on the subject. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that an enclosed connection from the main house to the guest house <br /> would add a new dimension to the proposal and flag additional variance requests. <br /> Although this would change the need for the CUP for the guest house, it would be creating <br /> a new nonconforming structure too close to the lot line. <br /> Pierpont questioned what the issue was, since this home should be viewed as an asset to <br /> the community and they would remove the outer driveway. <br /> Hawn stated that the problem stems from the new precedent that would be set by an <br /> approval of this nature. She reiterated that the applicants had been directed to legally <br /> PAGE 6 of 41 <br />