Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,September 21,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Erickson would like to point out the communication from a neighbor concerned about drainage, noting <br /> the two foot setback area is currently a wet area, and were concerned that new construction might <br /> possibly make that worse. Even if that weren't the case,he has a similar concern with this application in <br /> that there is land on the property where a new structure could be built in a different location and would <br /> comply with at least the side setback. He noted he considers it a fairly extreme setback down to a two <br /> foot variance as compared to one that might be in compliance. He feels the best justification other than <br /> the roofline is that they want to use the existing slab,which to him, if they're going to rebuild the entire <br /> structure, only costs a little more to pour a new slab. Based on that, his inclination is to deny the <br /> application. <br /> Chair Ressler asked if the application is not necessarily rebuilding the entire structure, it's just a matter of <br /> redoing the roof and going up as long as the existing structure supports it. <br /> Ms. Oakden answered yes,the plan shows they are proposing new windows and doors, but most of the <br /> structure is maintained and includes a new roofline. <br /> Chair Ressler said his perspective is if they were rebuilding,that roofline is probably arguably insufficient <br /> as far as runoff. He said it's occupying the same area of runoff with a sharp pitch versus a shallow pitch. <br /> In this circumstance, he is in support of it because going up is adding on to existing structure, trying to <br /> make it conform to a shallow pitch for 5.5 feet with some sort of weird half wall, go up and carry on...he <br /> said it's doing a lot to make not a lot of impact, change or improvement from how the neighbors are going <br /> to be impacted by the water runoff. He thinks this is a good opportunity for the neighbors, before it gets <br /> to the City Council,the neighbors can get together with the applicant and discuss what a plan is and see if <br /> their support can be rallied as that can be an improvement to a situation that right now is apparently a <br /> difficulty. Chair Ressler is in support of the application because of those circumstances. <br /> John Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle, homeowner, said he appreciates the perspectives each of them <br /> brought to this project. He said from the start,they've felt it's not so much a rebuilding as it is making it <br /> work more effectively for their needs. He said they've been focused on cubic feet versus square feet <br /> because what isn't shown is a structure,noting there was previously another 28 feet heading towards the <br /> house that was removed during the rebuild of the home. In reading the neighbor's full letters,they are <br /> supportive and are just saying if this happens,they want to improve the drainage by putting eaves on the <br /> building, which Mr. Ellenberger is fully compliant with. He noted both neighbors are fully supportive. <br /> Across the street isn't a home, rather it's the park so they will not be obstructing the view of anyone <br /> towards the lake. He said it was those types of things that made them feel it is a relatively minimal <br /> change. <br /> Gettman noted as mentioned several times,the setbacks are sacred to the Commission. He said the <br /> homeowner has done a lot of things and tried to do it all for the right reasons,he asked why the <br /> homeowner wouldn't want to pull the building back 4.5-5 feet and then go as high and wide as they want <br /> into their land. He said it comes back to the sacred part, as the building is already encroaching, so the <br /> Commission is trying to protect a further encroachment. He noted they've had massive arguments, <br /> especially close to lakeshore when people have a carriage area or dock that is turned into a home. He <br /> asked Mr. Ellenberger to help the Commission understand the Practical Difficulty and what is preventing <br /> him—noting again he's done a masterful job in trying to keep the same footprint. <br /> Mr. Ellenberger thinks the answer to that question is, in the 2.5 years they've owned the property;they've <br /> looked at the structure and how to use it for office, exercise and some storage. He noted the cubic space <br /> Page 9 of 27 <br />