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. knows what the pitches are from having been there often. He cannot find that any change in the lot line is going to change any sort of hardship from the pitch and grade from the street to the lakeshore. He cannot see a large net benefit either economically or as an access or as a drainage benefit and that this is a change worth going through for a variance. McCutcheon said he agrees with the previous comments. He noted that in looking at it without the boathouse and putting the property line back in play, it's the top of the hill or bottom of the hill, it's a horse apiece, and difficult both ways. The applicant is saying, even when the fence was there,they had to trespass to maintain the fence. Here is a situation where, if they want to maintain the boathouse,they will have to trespass. He does not see replacing one problem with another as beneficial. They might as well leave well enough alone and keep the six-foot setback, which is better than a 1-foot setback. He also does not see the practical difficulty. Gettman noted he disagrees with only one point in that it sounds like the applicant is willing to potentially have an easement but work on that side of the actual boundary line. While the crest is one issue and the boathouse the other issue, it sounded like the applicant might be willing to adjust the line closer to the boathouse to address that issue.He sees this as a practical difficulty in that the landowner had to literally buy the other house to try to resolve the issue. If the Commission can address it now, it will prevent another issue down the road. Ressler noted the Commission can't modify it because it does not have the"subject to" drawing. He suggested finding a way to rearrange the lot where it is not intensifying the setback to the boathouse. He noted that was the biggest issue for him. Changing the width of the lot has an impact, and the hardcover survey being correctly reflected is another. What he is hearing from fellow Commissioners is that the boathouse setback is creating a problem that is not as big of a problem as it is today. McCutcheon indicated the existing lot line is close to the shed, and a devil's advocate could say that they are moving the lot line for the boathouse closer but actually helping the shed. The tiebreaker in his view is the boathouse is closer to the lake, and the only reason it can be there is because it has been there a long time and is probably grandfathered in. He referenced the comment about years of strife because of the property line and doubted it was as simple as that,because if it was as simple as moving a property line, that would have been the solution a long time ago.A lot of work is being done just to move a lot line and he is trying to see a value,but he sees a problem going closer to the boathouse. Ressler agreed that drawing a line between the shed on one side and the boathouse on the other seems like the reasonable place that it already is. It is up for debate whether it's the crest of the hill,the middle of the hill, or the bottom of the hill. He personally does not see that a practical difficulty has been demonstrated enough to change what it is. He understands the hill part, but it did not solve the problem with the two structures lakeward. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to deny Application No. LA20-000024 Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road,lot area,lot width,hardcover,and side yard setback variances. Mr.Nygard stated the reason he put the line one foot from the boathouse is because that was the straightest line he could draw down from the crest of the hill. He would be willing to adjust the line to two feet so they would have room to maintain it.He noted the problem with all of the properties is that no matter what you do, something is going to be out of compliance.There was no easement before when they had the issues and the fence was put up. He stated that if someone puts a fence up and they are Page 7 of 29