Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> was;he mentioned that it's nice to have more storage space. Perhaps that fact leads Staff to conclude that <br /> part may be a convenience,which may preclude a hardship.Although it goes outside the boundaries of <br /> the application in front of the Commission,there may be some other ways to improve the storage without <br /> going closer to the county road. He suggested if the two-car garage were extended in depth, it would get <br /> closer to the unimproved road and there would be no neighbors there. If there were a variance in that <br /> direction, it might be something to look at. An accessory building in the backyard for lawn mowers, et <br /> cetera,would be something else that could be considered.He is very much in favor of the hardcover <br /> variance because it creates an opportunity to require the applicants to remove the unpermitted hardcover <br /> very close to the lakeshore. When the applicant mentioned this is really dock material, his memory <br /> immediately went back to another recent case the Planning Commission had of a contractor who <br /> expanded a boathouse without a permit but then said those were dock sections that were added next to the <br /> boathouse. At that time the Commission's vote was against the interpretation of the dock section being <br /> permitted hardcover. If the hardcover variance is a vehicle to require that unpermitted hardcover to be <br /> moved, it is definitely worthwhile. He does not even know how he would vote. It may be something that <br /> could be subject to a later discussion. <br /> Kirchner said he drove past the subject property and it is a unique area.He drove by twice to look at it <br /> based on the topography of it and how it slopes down towards the lake.Although it is not immediately <br /> next door to the applicants' residence,in the 4400 block of North Shore Drive,to the east of the <br /> applicants,there are homes that have sheds which have full single garage doors on them that are <br /> essentially on the property line.They were closer to the road, it seemed. He noted another home almost <br /> directly across and a little to the west of the applicant that is situated pretty much on the road and believes <br /> it is an old home constructed many years ago and might be abandoned. He said that the neighboring <br /> property that they share the driveway with does extend some into that 30-foot setback as well. He is <br /> thinking along the lines of Erickson in that it is a challenging application to determine between the <br /> practical difficulty versus convenience, but he also struggles with the fact that the neighboring property is <br /> encroaching into that 30-foot setback where the applicant is saying that that's part of what they're trying to <br /> accomplish as well with a single garage stall. <br /> Gettman stated the way Staff laid out the hardcover question made a lot of sense,but he thinks the <br /> Planning Commission is missing the fact it is a slippery slope. The 21 feet of the neighbor is not the new <br /> norm, it's not what the Commission is dealing with. 30 feet is 30 feet.There is no practical difficulty to go <br /> inside that,which is the issue Erickson was bringing up,because how do you potentially split it out to <br /> give them the safety,the practical difficulty of turning around, and not fall down the slippery slope of <br /> now saying the new norm is 21 or 18 feet, etc. He is definitely for the safety concerns if that means the <br /> Commission has to do something they otherwise wouldn't do. He'd like to try to split the variance out to <br /> allow the applicants the safety measure of trying to have the hardcover without actually eating into that <br /> 30-foot setback requirement. <br /> Ressler stated he does not know that there is enough practical difficulty for encroaching on the setback. <br /> He noted they just had a very long deliberation over another application with the same premise; if there's <br /> not enough of a justification, it's difficult. The real estate terminology he thinks of is "functional <br /> obsolescence," where you have a difficulty of a property that affects the value. An unjust enrichment, <br /> where hopefully there is probably a financial concession for that obsolescence,generates the difficulty for <br /> use and, unfortunately,that is affecting the applicants. Structure is something that the Planning <br /> Commission takes seriously and is very difficult to overcome.His personal feedback is they cannot try to <br /> redesign an application on the fly. He recommended the Commissioners vote based on the application in <br /> front of them with feedback on perhaps something that would be agreeable. He is not sure how he feels <br /> Page 14 of 29 <br />