Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 18,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kavanaugh stated finally the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and <br /> that the proposed use fits the neighborhood. Kavanaugh noted the next door lot, Lot 8, is also a 50-foot <br /> lot and there are other 50-foot lots located on Elmwood Avenue. Kavanaugh stated the applicants' <br /> proposed use fits the neighborhood. <br /> Kavanaugh stated the applicants meet the elements of practical difficulty and that they would ask for <br /> approval of the variance request. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br /> James Yarosh, Attorney-at-Law, stated he is here tonight representing Renee Meerkins and Claus Weiler, <br /> who reside at 1135 North Arm Drive, which is immediately north of the subject property. Yarosh stated <br /> before the Planning Commission tonight is a hypothetical question given the Special Lot Combination <br /> Agreement is still in effect and that the application for a variance is premature. In addition, not all the <br /> variances necessary for construction of the proposed house are being requested tonight. Yarosh noted the <br /> minimum lot size requirement for this district is one acre, which this lot does not meet since it is only .24 <br /> acre. <br /> Yarosh stated he understands the difficult situation before the Planning Commission and that he would <br /> submit that this is not supposed to be and never was a buildable lot given the Special Lot Combination <br /> Agreement. The same type of use has been denied by the City on four previous occasions. In addition, <br /> the proposal does not meet the minimum lot requirements. <br /> Yarosh stated the intent of the very ordinance that the applicants are seeking to have approved is to <br /> primarily protect the lake views a lakeshore property owner enjoys over their neighbor's lakeshore yard <br /> and avoid the tunnel view effect of being set back further from the lake than one's neighbors. Yarosh <br /> stated the ordinance is there to protect the neighbors and a variance would go away from that. <br /> Yarosh stated the circumstances in this situation have been created by the landowner. The owner knew or <br /> should have known that this lot was not buildable when they purchased their house. The owners were <br /> aware that this lot provided access to the lake. Yarosh stated all property owners are charged with <br /> constructive knowledge of the zoning ordinances at the time of purchase and that the applicants bought a <br /> house that came with this lot governed under the Special Lot Combination Agreement. <br /> Yarosh stated as it relates to the essential character of the neighborhood,the proposal changes the very <br /> nature of the house located at 1135 North Shore. Instead of having a nonbuildable lot in front of them, <br /> they will now have a house and their view of the lake will be changed as a result. <br /> Yarosh noted one of the questions relating to practical difficulty is whether granting the application is <br /> necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right by the applicant. Yarosh <br /> stated the applicants still have the right to enjoy the house they purchased as well as the lot that provides <br /> them with lake access. Yarosh stated it is not preserving a right but rather enhancing or giving the <br /> applicants more than what was originally contemplated when they purchased the property. <br /> Yarosh stated it is also his belief that the bluff ordinance applies. Yarosh noted Staff has reviewed the <br /> information submitted but still believes that based on the way the ordinance has been interpreted in the <br /> past, it does not meet the bluff ordinance. Yarosh stated if it is wrong in the first instance, it is not <br /> necessarily a justification for applying that in this case. <br /> Page 13 of 33 <br />