05-18-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 18,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Nygard asked the Commissioners to look at the last page of the packet he submitted, noting that he has the site plan he submitted for the driveway permit which shows new driveway versus removed driveway. Referencing a picture from Google Earth, he indicated an area at the bottom of the driveway where he removed 240 square feet of an illegal turnaround, a retaining wall, and a sidewalk. He said on the other side of the driveway there was a small slip he pulled out and there were 20 square feet for fence posts.He stated they were not included in the Gronberg survey because they were removed after he purchased the property but before Gronberg surveyed it. He said if you add the 270 square feet of hardcover to the initial existing,you end up with 4,819 square feet,giving over 29 percent hardcover. He noted it was originally over 29 percent and it is being reduced to over 28 percent.He is asking for 610 square feet and removed 270 square feet,which is 44 percent. They removed a large amount of hardcover in order to accommodate this. He can foresee the hardcover issue being important,but he also knew they were illegal additions to the property that did not belong and he wanted to remove them. He noted the City never dealt with the fence. Even though the driveway was installed,the previous owner who went through and got a variance and upgraded the property in 2004 or 2006 was blindsided because he did not know that the driveway turnaround was illegal.The City ended up approving it even though it was illegal. Although he is saying it is illegal,the turnaround and sidewalk is still City-approved hardcover. He removed them, anyway. Ressler asked Mr.Nygard to be available for any questions that may arise and he could do so by raising his hand so Ressler knew he was willing to participate,and Mr.Nygard agreed to do so. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler stated the Planning Commission generally does not like to intensify lot line setbacks to structure, which is the difficulty he is having with the rearrangement. Kirchner said he has concern regarding the 1-foot setback that would be created at the boathouse.He also has concern with the hardcover that would end up at 1380 Rest Point Road. He appreciates the applicant's desire and the efforts taken to remove the hardcover that was over the allowance and get the property closer to compliance; however,with the lot line rearrangement, a percentage of that is being added back and he feels like it is going two steps forward and one step back. He has concerns over the proximity of the lot line to the boathouse for maintenance of the boathouse for future owners as well as the hardcover that would be added to 1380. Erickson stated in order for the Planning Commission to determine the existence of a practical difficulty, they first need to determine that the proposed use is a reasonable use, which is where he has a problem with the proposal as it relates to the 1-foot setback. He understands the applicant has an explanation,but he has been trying to conjure up in his mind some circumstance where he might support a 1-foot setback anywhere for anyone,and he has been unable to do so. His conclusion is that a 1-foot setback is an unreasonable use and,therefore,there is no practical difficulty as required by state law. Libby said he agrees with Erickson but has a couple of additional points. He has substantial familiarity with the property from a terrestrial, aerial, and lakeside standpoint because that is a common visiting point for him as a boater.An inference of hardship does not follow through with any credence because he Page 6 of 29