Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> sell the lot until he gets this settled at the City level,as he needs approved variances. It is a 1.22 acre lot <br /> that is in a 5 acre zoning district, as Staff reported; normally with 300 feet of width, a 50 foot setback is <br /> acceptable. He said if he was to follow the strict guidelines of the ordinances,he noted onscreen the 100 <br /> foot line is right about there [noted onscreen], and said there is about 50 feet by 23.77 feet between the <br /> septic to build a house. He stated that will not sell to anybody they know, so they met as a family for the <br /> trust with Ms. Curtis and Mr. Barnhart and said they wanted to propose something that is fair. He noted <br /> all 4 of the lots on Stubbs Bay Road have a little difficulty being able to be guided with 100 foot front <br /> setbacks,they all fail that, and setbacks that are 50 feet on the sides...he stated every one would not be <br /> acceptable in today's standards. He asked what would be reasonable and suggested 50x15 and Staff <br /> supported that. Mr. Stickney noted they have a valid purchase agreement with a client that has brought a <br /> nice house plan together, and the property has an acceptable septic system, and a survey, and it is a great <br /> lot. It will be a nice improvement for the area,but they are not asking for anything more than what is <br /> acceptable to the neighbors to the north, and what is needed for this property. He said he can also talk <br /> about the flag lot on the south,he knows those people,too, and they will probably never use a driveway, <br /> it is a non-issue as it would be about a$200,000 driveway and tree removal...he said they enter the <br /> property on Watertown Road. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler noted it is in a 5 acre ordinance and it is a 1.2 acre actual lot,there are no problems with <br /> front and rear,and the sides both to the north and south are the issues. He said 50 feet is the ordinance, <br /> they are proposing 15.5 and 18.2. Deliberation is whether or not that is okay and if that is in the spirit of <br /> the neighborhood. <br /> Mr. Stickney clarified they are proposing 15 on both sides; the existing plan shows a house that is 18.2 <br /> and 15.5. They are proposing that this be guided as a vacant lot so someone could buy it and the buyer is <br /> proposing a house that fits like that. <br /> Ms. Oakden said the application as presented is this, and they can only act as the volume and the structure <br /> that is shown within those encroachments within the setbacks. They cannot set a new setback for this <br /> specific property. <br /> Mr. Stickney said the application was to create 15 foot side setbacks and that does not mean the new <br /> owner should have to create a house that hits both sides of the setback. The new owner wants the <br /> flexibility to put a house that fits in there. He said this makes the sale of the lot sellable. <br /> Chair Ressler said the proposed survey would have needed to have the proposed house within that 15 feet <br /> on both sides and it looks like the survey on record appears it is 18.2 on one side and 15.5 to the other. <br /> Mr. Stickney said yes,that is where it sits on the lot,but it sits within the new approved 15 foot side <br /> setbacks. He is just clarifying that. <br /> Barnhart said they are kind of in a dicey situation because Staff grants a variance based on a proposal and <br /> based on the practical difficulties that is proposed. They generally cannot apply practical difficulties on <br /> spec, so that is why they have to link it to a plan, which is the plan in front of them. In the future, <br /> assuming the Planning Commission approves this plan,this is the boundary and if there are some <br /> Page 13 of 23 <br />