12-12-2016 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. *19. #16-3882 JON RESSLER — 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6713 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6713, a Resolution Granting Variances from Orono Municipal Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 3683 North Shore Drive, File No. 16-3882. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL City Planner Curtis stated the applicants are appealing a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals who reviewed on November 21" the decision by Staff regarding the pergola constructed on their property. During the process of filing the building permits for the new home, an as -built survey was submitted by the builder and reviewed by Staff. Upon review, it became evident that a pergola was constructed over a retaining wall within two feet of the property line. The pergola is approximately seven feet tall. It was not noted on the approved building permit plan. The ordinance allows a fence to be constructed on the property line provided that the fence does not exceed six feet or provides for certain architectural features of a house to encroach into the required setbacks. These encroachments do include ornamental features provided they do not extend more than two feet into the required yard. The applicants feel that Subsection 1 within the non -encroachment section of the code should apply. The pergola is not attached to the house but it does encroach further than two feet into the required yard. Should the Council determine the detached pergola and improvement should be allowed to encroach into the required setback, a variance would be required to permit it in its current location. At their November meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Following the discussion with Staff and the applicant's representative, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the appeal_ The property owners have requested the City Council review their appeal request. The City Council should review the application and make a decision regarding the appeal and direct Staff to draft the appropriate findings. Pia Schutt, Applicant, stated it is difficult for them to understand why this pergola is being considered a fence. Schutt stated the pergola is very attractive and that it was part of their landscape plan. Jeff Schutt stated the comment was made that it was not approved per the landscape plan. Schutt stated the landscape plan was approved in the middle of June and the cross members of the arbor structure were shown on the lot line. Schutt stated they are kind of confused as to how it was approved and then now not approved. Pia Schutt stated the reason they added it is because they ended up spending quite a bit of money on landscaping due to a French drain that was required along the lot line. Schutt stated that French drain, which is made up of a lot of stones, took away from the appearance of that side of the house and that this is a very simple structure that was intended to add some greenery to that area. Page 23 of 33