Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 15,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Libby stated he tends to agree from the standpoint of how they look at the metrics. When there is <br /> something that has irregularities, it is not uncommon to take the measured empirical distance from either <br /> the center line of the street or curb, measure back a block's worth of properties, and then divide the <br /> number of properties within that block. Instead what the City is trying to deal with is a very static line <br /> that does not take into account the irregular shoreline. <br /> Barnhart noted Staff does use its average measuring tool for some nonconforming properties but not for <br /> lakeshore lots. The problem with the average number for most situations is that the line is logical. The <br /> view is established by where the structure is. <br /> Libby stated as long as that stays the static purpose,there is no way to do it differently. Preserving the <br /> lakeshore is important and is similar to the dock alignments, which is very complicated. The LMCD <br /> attempts to have something fair and reasonable so the docks line up but the lakeshore is not linear and <br /> does not take into account that the lakeshore differs. <br /> McCutcheon stated he agrees it is a problem and that perhaps they could look at having some sort of <br /> minimum for the neighborhood. <br /> Barnhart stated in his view, if the average lakeshore setback is 219 feet,there should be some sort of <br /> maximum lakeshore setback since there are probably some situations where the house is 450 feet back. <br /> The question then becomes, is it fair to have that lot set the average lakeshore setback for the neighboring <br /> house and should it be protected as much as the homes on Casco Point where they are all lined up. <br /> Barnhart stated that type of situation should be part of any discussion since that creates some of the <br /> issues. While a new ordinance is not going to eliminate all variances, it could help reduce it somewhat. <br /> Bollis stated he would be in favor of eliminating it, which should be brought forward for discussion. <br /> Gettman commented they also did not discuss vegetation that can obstruct a view. In the application <br /> earlier,there were some trees that were blocking the view and the other neighbor was willing to remove <br /> those. Having that as part of the discussion would also be helpful. If one property owner puts in a bunch <br /> of trees, it ends up defeating the purpose of having these protections. <br /> Barnhart noted the Council did look at regulating landscaping in the lake yard in the past and ultimately <br /> discarded any changes because they did not want to get into regulating that. The City is trying to protect <br /> the lake but they also want to preserve a natural view. <br /> Gettman stated enforcement of the ordinance also needs to be looked at. <br /> Barnhart stated enforcement of the ordinance can be discussed at any point. <br /> Ressler stated something else to take into consideration is the added cost of surveying the shoreline, <br /> which in his view is being utilized in ways it should not be. The City should take into consideration the <br /> average lakeshore setbacks of neighboring properties and not just the two adjoining properties. <br /> Erickson stated as it regards the 180-degree view,that is really unrealistic, and the idea of reasonable <br /> views has more merit. The City has three different lot sizes on the lake,which makes a difference if <br /> Page 15 of 17 <br />