Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday, January 20, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, <br /> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued) <br /> - the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the <br /> accessory building. <br /> He encouraged the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses <br /> of this building once the kitchen is removed, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied. <br /> Kitchen removal should include the following, in the opinion of staff: <br /> 1. Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. <br /> 2. Remove refrigerator. <br /> 3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing. <br /> Planning Commission should confirm that these are the appropriate fixtures to be removed <br /> to result in the conversion from a `guest house' use to an `accessory structure with <br /> plumbing' use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as `not allowed to be <br /> reinstalled' in the CUP resolution. <br /> Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in the accessory <br /> structure, subject to the following: <br /> 1. Applicants to execute standard `use limitation' covenants as required by City <br /> Ordinance. <br /> 2. Conversion from `guest house' status to `accessory building with plumbing' status <br /> will require removal of existing kitchen facilities including stove and microwave oven, if <br /> any; refrigerator; and kitchen sink and associated plumbing. <br /> While Mr. Pierpont agreed with staff's conditions, he questioned whether what he used for <br /> a kitchen sink, which was an antique piece of furniture housing a sink, could be <br /> differentiated from a kitchen sink. In addition, he pointed out that the guest house provides <br /> a small refrigerator and cook top. Pierpont pointed out that it was their intent to divide the <br /> properties into 4 acre and 2 acre sites. He argued that due to the change in code, the %2 acre <br /> wetland has diminished their property to the point at which they cannot have their guest <br /> house. He maintained that the wetland has always been on the site, as has the stable and <br /> guest house, and only the Ordinance change has changed disallowing these things. He <br /> asked for an exception. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth asked whether the applicant found the subdivision necessary if they <br /> planned to hook up to City sewer when available. <br /> Pierpont stated that they are trying to correct a flaw in the property and make a second <br /> stand alone parcel. <br /> PAGE 38 of 53 <br />