Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> the application. In addition,the application does not present all the variances that are required. If the toe <br /> is put at 942,this would be considered bluff land and require a variance since the City's ordinance states <br /> there shall be no structures in the bluff land. Thieroff stated the response he received back was that Staff <br /> does not agree the toe is at 942 feet. <br /> Thieroff stated the second additional variance not applied for is a variance to the structural coverage limit. <br /> The applicant's calculation was at 14.9 percent and Staff agreed with that calculation. Thieroff stated as <br /> he reads the ordinance,the applicants would need to include the patio but did not. The ordinance says <br /> patios are included if they are partially enclosed by a wall. Thieroff stated the patio is right up against the <br /> house and that he would construe that as partially enclosed, which bumps it over the 15 percent. <br /> Thieroff stated in addition,this is a tiny lot that is substandard by a significant degree. The lot is located <br /> in a one-acre zoning district but it only consists of a quarter acre. Thieroff stated he heard reference to the <br /> state statute earlier this evening and that he would like to point out the statute was amended to give the <br /> City discretion to allow someone to build on a lot less than one acre but does not require it. Thieroff <br /> stated since the time the state statute has been amended,the City has not amended its ordinance to allow <br /> that and the applicants would need a variance for that as well. <br /> Thieroff stated in regard to the ordinance requirements for granting a variance, he would like to highlight <br /> two points. The state statute and the ordinance state that you cannot grant any variance that is <br /> incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan or with the Community Management Plan. Guiding Principal <br /> No. 5 states that views shall be preserved. Thieroff stated this development, if allowed, would not <br /> preserve but would obstruct the view his clients have enjoyed for a number of years. <br /> Thieroff stated the plight of a landowner should be due to unique circumstances and not circumstances <br /> that they have created themselves. The applicants have purchased a piece of property with a house and <br /> another piece of property with a dock on it. The Special Lot Combination Agreement says they could <br /> never construct on that property unless it was subdivided and the City Council has denied the proposed <br /> subdivision. Thieroff noted there have been no changes in the law or circumstances that would require a <br /> different outcome and that there are no unique circumstances other than the desires of the landowner. <br /> Thieroff noted the design of the house is also a circumstance of the property owner's own making. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the applicants' attorney said he thought the Special Lot Combination Agreement may be <br /> illegal, which brings up the point that if the average lakeshore setback moves to the front piece of the <br /> property, one of the major issues would go away. Schoenzeit asked what his thinking is in regards to that. <br /> Thieroff asked if he is saying that these two lots are separated <br /> Schoenzeit stated if you assume that the two lots cannot be combined and if the Special Lot Combination <br /> Agreement went away and if the average lakeshore setback moved to the theoretical location of No. 6 or <br /> goes away completely, what his thoughts are regarding those circumstances. <br /> Thieroff stated he does not remember what is north of Lot 6. <br /> Gaffron indicated there is a house there. <br /> Thieroff stated it is an extremely hypothetical question because it is not the case that the pending lawsuit <br /> against the City is challenging these Special Lot Combination Agreements across the board. Thieroff <br /> Page 17 of 30 <br />