Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> In 1994, a variance was granted to allow construction of the existing hoe 30 feet from the rear lot line <br /> where a 50-foot setback is required. A door was constructed on the south side of the upper level which <br /> was required by building code to be blocked off for safety reasons. In 2012, a permit was issued to allow <br /> a minimal landing and stair for egress at this door location. <br /> The current property owners are requesting a setback variance in order to construct a 14' x 14' deck(plus <br /> stair) in this location, 30 feet from the rear lot line where a 50-foot setback is required and a 30-foot <br /> setback currently exists for the home. <br /> The applicants' property has only 125 feet in depth making the 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks <br /> difficult to meet. The existing home meets the required 50-foot front setback and was granted a variance <br /> for the location 30 feet from the rear. <br /> Staff finds the applicants' request for a setback variance is reasonable considering the nature of the small <br /> lot neighborhood and the location of the existing home. There are trees between the applicants' property <br /> and the property to the rear which offer some screening. The deck is not proposed to encroach closer to <br /> the rear lot line than the existing home and it does not appear that it will limit the light, air, and open <br /> space between the properties. It also does not alter the character of the immediate neighborhood. <br /> The Planning Commission should note that there is an 83 square foot shed located between the home and <br /> the front lot line. The shed is 19.6 feet from the front lot line. This shed was constructed by a previous <br /> property owner and not the applicants. No permits exist for this shed and it exists in an illegal location. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to require the applicants <br /> to relocate the shed to a conforming location. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear setback variance for the proposed deck. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission should address the shed. <br /> Curtis stated in her view it should be addressed. Currently the shed is illegal but it is new enough that it <br /> could either be removed or relocated. The applicants are allowed the shed but in a different location. <br /> Landgraver asked if the shed is attached to the ground somehow. <br /> Curtis indicated it appears to be just set on the ground. <br /> Brian Henning, Applicant, stated they would like the Planning Commission to consider the fact that they <br /> are located on a dead-end road and are the second to the last house from the end. There is very little traffic <br /> on the road so not very many people will see the shed. The shed is also sided and contains two double- <br /> hung windows with a shingled, peak roof that matches the house. The lot has quite a bit of slope to it <br /> which limits the areas where the shed could be located. Henning indicated if it is located up in the corner, <br /> it would be quite a walk from the house. <br /> Henning distributed pictures of the property. <br /> Henning stated in their view it is a nice looking building and that it has been there for quite some time. <br /> None of the neighbors have complained about it. Henning requested the Planning Commission consider <br /> allow the shed in its current location. <br /> Page 5 of 25 <br />