01/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE—Continued) Rahn reiterated that he saw no specific hardship to allow the structure to remain at its current size. While he could accept the lack of hardship, Fritzler believed that the combination might be subject to subdivision at a later date. Gundlach reminded the Commission that they would also need to consider granting a variance for accessory structures in excess of 6,000 s.f. and the addition of a second oversized accessory structure, if they wished to follow this course of action. With regard to the potential for subdivision, Gaffron pointed out that the applicant would need to sign covenants for oversized structures which could require the removal of the structures if the parcels were subjects of a future subdivision. He felt the future potential for subdivision could be addressed at a later date with reference to the oversized structures. Mabusth added to her motion, moving that the combination deadline of July 20, 2004, be noted and that a second variance is granted to allow for 2 oversized accessories structures on the legally combined parcels in excess of 20 acres. Hawn seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Rahn and Fritzler dissenting. Rahn and Fritzler referred to their previously noted rationale for denial. (#6) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE (7:05-7:24 P.M.) Robert and Joanne Switz, the Applicants, were present. Gundlach reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25%is normally allowed. Gundlach explained that the project was originally heard at the November 17, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the excessive structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12, 2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project tabled as new plans were being prepared. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning Department staff brought the applicant back to the Planning Commission for a new recommendation. PAGE 10 of 53