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 /> While the sink as it exists was small, Gaffron questioned the Commission whether they felt <br /> the covenants would limit its use. <br /> Pierpont stated that he was willing to sign any covenants. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth did not believe the small sink enclosed in the antique piece should <br /> have to go. <br /> Fritzler disagreed, stating that he felt a cook top and sink constituted a kitchen in his mind <br /> and would have to go. <br /> Rahn concurred with Fritzler, stating that the concept allows a bathroom facility but stops <br /> short of a kitchen facility. <br /> Gaffron suggested this be revisited in the code at a future date, as the original intent of the <br /> code was to allow a bathroom facility in the garage. <br /> While she believed the sink housed in the piece of furniture was lovely, Bremer was <br /> concerned that the Commission has denied similar requests in the past and could not allow <br /> this request. <br /> Pierpont reiterated that the only thing that has changed over time is the law. He maintained <br /> that he had not changed a thing to his property and been given approvals from the original <br /> construction decades ago, as well as, as recently as 1990, and now they are being told they <br /> need to remove this amenity. He again repeated that plumbing had always been a part of <br /> the stable and merely upgraded over the years,just as the wetland has always been a part of <br /> the property. He felt this should be a non-issue, since his guest house was approved 14 <br /> years ago in a previous application. <br /> Rahn reminded the applicant that the previous approval was based on the legal <br /> combination, which was not performed. <br /> Pierpont maintained that he was unaware, until beginning this process to uncombined <br /> them, that they were never combined in the first place. <br /> Rahn stated that the dilemma facing the Commission is that there is no hardship to support <br /> this request; therefore, they must stick to the Code. <br /> Hannaford disagreed, stating that in his opinion, there was a hardship, the application <br /> before the Commission had been approved in the past, and now they are asking him to <br /> remove something that he was already granted approval of. Hannaford stated that the <br /> PAGE 39 of 53 <br />