Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Erickson is in favor of it,too, and would be in favor of approving the variance and perhaps they might <br /> specify that one side yard could be not less than 15.5 feet and the other side yard could be not less than <br /> 18.2 feet. With the stipulation that the Commission will not specify which side yard is which and that can <br /> be determined at the City Council meeting. <br /> Gettman said they actually have to do that approval; it wouldn't be that the Commission could give that <br /> variance like the one applicant was suggesting. He is also confused as to why they are back to <br /> readdressing the variance. He would suggest that they look at flipping the house 90 degrees; so the <br /> elevation obviously is the issue but either way they will have to drop off. If they set it closer to that 16.5 <br /> foot narrow driveway that cannot be used for a driveway that would obviously give more space for the <br /> other neighbors who are here testifying. As mentioned,they are not here to redesign anything but he <br /> would be totally against this as proposed. <br /> Libby knows the public hearing is closed but said as a point of information,he is curious about some of <br /> the remarks that were made by the neighbor because the people have lived there for decades and their <br /> information and experience of lifestyle living so close to the subject property. He would like to clarify <br /> what the additional road is or the other property that was noted also by Bollis, and there is an eyewitness <br /> neighbor that lives here and he can even see Mr. Stickney questioning the statement. Libby said he is not <br /> questioning the validity of the statement,but he is curious as a point of information,with Chair Ressler's <br /> permission,to ask the neighbor if they could more clearly explain this unused road after decades of <br /> maintaining the property. How could that possibly be a problem solver for this situation. <br /> Chair Ressler asked to see an overhead to see if that gives some clarity. <br /> Ms. Oakden said she thinks what is being referenced is the roughly 16 feet right here [noted onscreen] <br /> and is connected to a parcel that is a flag-shaped lot. She is sure the intent was perhaps some sort of <br /> driveway; it has never been approved and is not a right-of-way or dedicated outlot by any means. It is <br /> private property. <br /> Chair Ressler said to clarify for Mr. Libby,he thinks what the neighbors are referring to is, if they are <br /> going to get tighter on one side than the other,why wouldn't they go to the area that is not really being <br /> used. <br /> Kirchner noted that is his comment, he is not here to endorse trying to subdivide lots and things like that. <br /> It was merely, if they can push the 18 feet to the north to give where there is an existing home a little <br /> more space,and pinch a little bit on the south where there is arguably never anything going to be built on <br /> a 16 foot flag. He said that would be something he would be more supportive of than as proposed here. <br /> Libby said they really don't know or understand what the ownership of this other portion is,if it is a City <br /> easement or if it is privately owned by an adjoining property. <br /> Gettman noted Staff has said it is privately owned. <br /> Ms. Oakden said it is part of that parcel. <br /> Libby said this again falls into that category that the Commission does not want to change the <br /> applications but he is just bringing it up as a point of information or clarification. Perhaps for the <br /> representative of the property owner,the developer, and the builder, acquisition and subdivision on <br /> Page 16 of 23 <br />