06-22-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 8, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 14. LA20-000028 – BAYCLIFF HOMES O/B/O DAVID AND WENDY JACOBSEN-GRETSCH, 2440 OLD BEACH ROAD – VARIANCE Staff presented a summary of packet information. David and Wendy Jacobsen-Gretsch, 2440 Old Beach Road. Mr. Jacobsen-Gretsch thanked the City Council for their time and commitment during this crazy time and also thanked them for coming out to the site. He stated their project is an intentional remodel of the property; what was unintentional is all the problems they discovered. They ended up removing two raised patios with storage units due to water damage. They are asking for a variance to extend the adjacent setback due to a hardship in their property. As stated in the Planning Committee notes, the purpose of the house setback/adjacent property setback is to prevent encroachment lake views and is designed to prevent homes from moving towards the lakeshore. They are asking for a variance that is in complete alignment with that, especially considering the hardship they are proposing that exists on their property which is completely out of their control. From their perspective, the hardship is clear. The house to the north moved back when they tore down their house to build a pool. That has adjusted their setback to make the existing structure nonconforming. That change was obviously out of their control and has caused a hardship not only to them but also to their property. The distance is 15 feet between the movement of that house back to theirs. He said that 15 feet across their lot is about 3,000 feet of unusable space due to that movement. That is the hardship that they claim which is out of their control. They will still be 107 feet back from the shoreline. He noted it is a little frustrating through the process in that they chose to preserve the existing house and it probably would have been resolved had they torn down the existing house and started over. He hopes the City Council can see that they were trying to invest in what was already there. He also believes the hardship addresses an area of the setback rule that was never really intended. He asked what someone does when a house moves back. He asked what would happen if the neighbor moved back another 50 feet, because then his entire backyard would be nonconforming. That is where he thinks it goes bigger than the individual hardship; it goes to the lack of productivity of the entire lot. He noted the Council has done a lot of things to be more efficient and have things align with more common sense. He believes the variance aligns with that. Everyone they have talked to has said, “Yeah, that kind of makes sense, the neighbor did that.” He said they respect the City Council’s decision but ask for their support. Printup stated it is a very valid point, because what do you do when the neighbor goes back as opposed to the conventional wisdom of when a neighbor goes forward. Walsh said there have been a number of instances when the house has been way back, and if somebody is trying to build a house where it is so far back, it has created a practical difficulty. He can visualize that the house the applicant is in currently, when it was built, was built with plenty of room and gave themselves some flexibility. Because the house next to them went backwards, it created a practical difficulty for them. They did not create it; it was created for them. He thinks it is pretty reasonable to be able to keep the existing line that was there and to be able to build into that and solve the problem they have. It is also in line with what they have done in the past, houses that are already way back that the Council has kind of let come up within a reasonable sight line. Crosby stated he went out to the site and visited with the homeowner, and the neighbor’s house is fairly far forward to allocate for their pool, and so forth. It is not a practical difficulty that the Applicant created and it is a practical difficulty to him.