Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart has not done that analysis yet as he wanted to get this out to the Commissioners first and that is <br /> something they would provide as part of a workshop. <br /> Kirchner said that would be helpful because part of the argument is that this would reduce the workload <br /> and he would be curious to know the actual data behind that. <br /> Barnhart cautioned regardless of where they draw that line,the next day they will get an application that <br /> will be above that line. That is just the fact of the matter. He said it is a fair comment and he could <br /> provide some analysis about how that would impact. He would also caution about using that too strongly <br /> because there may be one...for example,there was an accessory building 1-2 months ago with a roof <br /> structure. That likely would fall under this type of criteria. <br /> Kirchner asked if that was denied by both Planning Commission and Council. <br /> Barnhart replied that is correct, and clarified it was withdrawn. The Commission struggled with <br /> approving it and the Council had the same comments. He would be cautious because they may have that <br /> memory that"we didn't like this because the neighbor didn't like it." He does not think that was the case <br /> here,but the Commissioners did not like it because it did not meet practical difficulty. This ordinance <br /> would basically circumvent that requirement to have practical difficulty. <br /> Chair Ressler said if Barnhart had asked them last month,this would be a lot easier to understand than <br /> this meeting, as they had a lot of varying opinions and different results. The last meeting was the epitome <br /> of saying 'why don't they have some of this in place' and Barnhart may be catching the Commissioners at <br /> a rough time on this one. He thinks for example, a basement excavation—he does not think that would <br /> eliminate any applications. <br /> Barnhart said actually they have had one. <br /> Ms. Oakden noted there was a porch that was an average lakeshore setback variance and was approved <br /> and when they submitted for a building permit it showed that it didn't have anything underneath it, it was <br /> just a porch upgrade. Then they submitted for a building permit that put a whole basement underneath <br /> that porch which was all lakeward within the average lakeshore setback and they could not approve their <br /> building permit without them going through a new variance process to ask for that additional space even <br /> though it is all basement space. They decided to amend their plans to meet the variance approval and not <br /> move forward,but it was a challenging process. <br /> Chair Ressler's feedback is it sounds like an error on behalf of the applicant,not necessarily on Staff or <br /> Commission. He does not know that it comes up often enough for the Commission not to want to look at <br /> it. The roof modification,he thinks it was Casco and there was a split decision on that one; he was <br /> completely okay with that roofline that ended up not passing. He thinks that is exactly why it's nice to <br /> have the ability to deliberate it because there will always be mitigating circumstances, especially when <br /> dealing with lake lots like tonight. He said Nos. 3 and 4 seem pretty reasonable to him and tonight is not <br /> the time to come up with those numbers but rather to think about what those numbers might be,have a <br /> work session in the new year and get a little more serious about what those numbers are. To summarize, <br /> they are looking for what seems agreeable and then they can start nailing it down to what those numbers <br /> and square footages might be agreeable to. <br /> Page 21 of 23 <br />