10-19-2020 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler asked if average lakeshore setback would still be a concern. Ms. Oakden said the homeowner would have to show it, she's not sure if one foot would resolve that setback encroachment. Chair Ressler commented that he thinks it can be done by changing it and not getting into the average lakeshore setback, noting it looks like it's a worsening of a condition looking at the current steps versus the proposed steps. He stated he doesn't think he's in favor of it as it's proposed. Libby agreed with Chair Ressler, noting he's trying very hard to get his head around why Staff would've denied this based on a Practical Difficulty, as he is still trying to look for it. He said he listened to a relatively articulate presentation by the homeowner, who addressed somewhat sensitive and familiar issues that are dear to his heart(having to do with Veterans). However,he still cannot find the Practical Difficulty and tends to agree with Staff and he cannot support it. Gettman asked to confirm regarding the required setback, if Staff could confirm the setback Erickson referred to, if it's 15 feet or 30 feet. Ms. Oakden replied it is both,noting it is 2 variances: one is a 30 foot building setback for the street-yard, and one is a 15 foot driveway standard from the garage doors. Gettman noted there is a third variance which is the lakeshore setback. Ms. Oakden responded yes,the average lakeshore setback. She said there is a fourth variance for a wide driveway in the 75, where they only allow 8 feet so they'd need a variance to allow the construction of a wider driveway. She clarified that as proposed,the Application would trigger four variances. Chair Ressler shared there had been discussion on variances for driveways for different reasons, he doesn't really have a problem with the driveway as proposed, but he's not thrilled about the other three. He noted he thinks there are ways to make the project still conform. Libby noted there was conversation about adjacent and surrounding properties and some standards that were set by that. He said they need to be very careful because they really don't have any empirical data about those setbacks and aren't working with real dimensions, noting it's really opinion, hearsay and conjecture and they can't advise Council based on those standards. He said that's another reason he has compunction to support this. Chair Ressler said,that is not a Practical Difficulty, and one thing the Commission considers is does it conform to the spirit and the scope of the neighborhood; he noted it is up for debate but doesn't think it's part of their discussion. Libby moved,Kirchner seconded,to deny LA20-000057, 1985 Fagerness Point Road Variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. LA20-000058 MARK&MARY ENGER,2697 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE. STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS. Mark and Mary Enger, Applicants, were present. Page 13 of 27