Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> setback,just about the same amount as in this case. The Planning Commission voted at that time not to <br /> permit it, and that was an existing structure. This is a proposal which has not yet been built, and Staff has <br /> advised the Commissioners the house could be made bigger if they had located the addition in a different <br /> part of the property. That tells him that the reason for it being proposed where it is, is for the applicant's <br /> convenience because there are viable alternatives. If it is a convenience to the applicant,they should not <br /> try to make a practical difficulty out of it, because it is not there in his view. <br /> Kirchner noted he does not have any further feedback beyond what has been provided. In reviewing the <br /> practical difficulties report from City Staff,he does not believe that a practical difficulty can be <br /> established in this case.As Erickson pointed out,this may be more so a matter of convenience. <br /> Gettman said he does not see the overcoming practical difficulty in the request and noted the previous <br /> Commissioners have already stated his position. <br /> Ressler noted that Erickson did a nice job of summarizing. He stated there are alternatives available,they <br /> have denied applicants of similar characteristics in the past,and the code that the Commission has to <br /> follow does not allow any sort of grandfathering in of previous structure once structure is replaced. <br /> Unless there is a motion that carries and changes the by-laws to allow grandfathering for a previous <br /> structure to redraw potential average setbacks,the Commissioners have to go by the rules and guidelines <br /> and grant variances to practical difficulties. He said he tends to agree with the rest of the Commissioners. <br /> Kirchner commented that there has been a lot of discussion about the property that's under construction <br /> that was pushed back in regard to accommodating a swimming pool. He said he zoomed out a little bit on <br /> the survey and sees the approximate existing dwelling one more to the left of it, and he is trying to figure <br /> out if the house was moved back to accommodate that average lakeshore setback, although he could not <br /> determine where that line would be. <br /> Curtis noted the applicant provided that line on the survey. She indicated the line and noted that it cuts <br /> through the applicant's proposed addition slightly. <br /> McCutcheon moved,Gettman seconded,to deny Application No. LA20-000028 Bay Cliff Homes, <br /> 2440 Old Beach Road,variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Gettman,Kirchner,Bollis,McCutcheon, <br /> Erickson,Libby,Ressler),Nays 0. <br /> 4. LA20-000029 MICHAEL LOUWERSE,4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES, <br /> 7:29 P.M. -8:17 P.M. <br /> Michael Louwerse and Elise Kottraba,Applicants,were present. <br /> Staff presented a summary of packet information. <br /> McCutcheon stated it looks like the property east has a garage closer to the road than the applicant's <br /> house,and asked if they are in violation of the setback. <br /> Curtis said she did not have their survey information. She stated they show the nearest part of the house <br /> on their survey which was provided,but she does not have it. She did not believe it was in the setback. It <br /> is not much if it is.Using the survey, she stated it was 21.7 feet; the setback is 30 feet. <br /> Page 11 of 29 <br />