Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 18,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver asked if there are other situations in Orono where there is one house that is further set back as <br /> in this instance and the Planning Commission has approved an average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> Gaffron stated this situation is somewhat unusual than most other homes in the neighborhood. Gaffron <br /> stated they would still be looking at the fact that this lot has a Special Lot Combination Agreement, which <br /> does define the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should find whether <br /> the proposed house impacts the views of the neighbors. <br /> Thiesse asked when the lots were combined. <br /> Gaffron stated the Special Lot Combination Agreement goes back at least 15 to 20 years. <br /> Thiesse asked if the house was there prior to the Special Lot Combination Agreement. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not sure when the house was originally constructed but that it is his understanding it <br /> was. <br /> Lemke asked if the Special Lot Combination Agreement covers the lot right in front of the house. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the two lots that have the Special Lot Combination Agreement. <br /> Morgan Kavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law, stated the height variance request has been formally withdrawn by <br /> the applicants, but their position remains the same that an average lakeshore setback variance is not <br /> required since the line should be drawn from Lot 5 and not the immediately adjacent house,which is Lot <br /> 21. Kavanaugh stated even using the immediate adjacent house, the lot is not functionally buildable,as <br /> pointed out by Staff, without an average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> Kavanaugh stated as it relates to the elements of practical difficulty,there are three main components: the <br /> reasonable use element, unique circumstances of the property, and the essential character of the <br /> neighborhood. In regards to the reasonable use element, the applicants are seeking to build a modest, <br /> single-family home that will meet all code requirements. Kavanaugh noted Staff has previously stated <br /> that this is a buildable lot except for the Special Lot Combination Agreement, which is not at issue tonight <br /> and the application should be viewed as noted in Staff's report as if Lot 7 were separately owned. <br /> Kavanaugh stated also not at issue tonight is the prior history of the lot. At prior Planning Commission <br /> and City Council meetings, Staff has stated that building has occurred or will occur on identical sized lots <br /> with 50-foot shorelines. Furthermore, the owners to the south of Lot 9, was recently sold as a separate <br /> parcel for development and building on that 50-foot lot and construction is almost completed. Kavanaugh <br /> stated the proposed use for the subject lot is the same as all other property owners in the City and is <br /> reasonable. <br /> Secondly,the applicants did not create the circumstances unique to the property and had nothing to do <br /> with the Special Lot Combination Agreement that exists between Lots 6 and 21. Kavanaugh stated those <br /> lots are also separated by a right-of-way and a separate identification number and should be considered <br /> separate lots for the purposes of calculating the average lakeshore setback. Kavanaugh stated the <br /> circumstances creating the need for the variance are unique to the property and were not created by the <br /> Alnesses. <br /> Page 12 of 33 <br />