01-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. chimney was not anticipated and not reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council when the variance was granted. So,this chimney is a new visible sightline expansion within the ALS so it triggers the need for a re-review or a new variance to allow it. Chair Ressler said not only is she saying it is a height concern but it is also encroaching on side yard setbacks. Ms. Oakden replied no,just the ALS. The original house the Planning Commission saw in 2019 for the variance showed a 12-foot setback and when the building permit came in and this house,they have proposed they pulled the house back to 14 feet. This footprint of the chimney always anticipated house massing in that space. The actual footprint of the chimney being lakeward is not necessarily the concern but it is the height of the chimney in that new sightline expansion that is triggering the ALS variance. Bollis asked if the overall footprint of the house is getting smaller. Ms. Oakden noted they just pivoted the house so the overall footprint of the house and hardcover from 2019 is the same. Robert Schmidt of Premium Construction approached the podium is here on behalf of the Oares and noted Tim Oare is here today. When they originally submitted this application,the original house was on the property and was torn down. They submitted a plan for a variance to place the house where it is shown. The biggest difficulty was that down the line was the ALS because of the carriage house that sat way up by the road. During the discussion to get the variance, and the other line shown,they basically said it doesn't make much sense to use the one up front and rather they should reestablish it and set the house using that setback. That is basically why the house is where it is at. Mr. Schmidt said they did not have the chimney on the plan when submitted the first time and all the talk about this variance was the sightline, how far away they were,how close to the lake,and nobody talked about the roofline, shingles, or anything else. They went ahead and put the chimney on and it triggered the variance that it technically did not meet requirements. What Mr. Schmidt is saying is if they would have originally had the chimney on the proposal to get the variance,he does not think anybody would have even brought it up. At this point it seems a little strange and the house is not even built but they are in the process of building the house now. He stated the chimney is lower than the highest peak of the roof, and he gets it,but as a technicality it is a little moot. He said they are looking for the Planning Commission to consider the fact that if they had the chimney on previously, would the Planning Commission have approved it;the fact that the other lakeshore setback to set the house puts the chimney behind lakeshore access. He noted they are using two lakeshore setbacks to determine what to do on this property and he asked to pick one or the other. Chair Ressler is not familiar with height requirements for wood burning versus gas as far as chimneys go. He asked if there is a minimum they need to have for it to be a wood burning chimney. Mr. Schmidt said all chimneys need to be two feet higher than any ten foot; he clarified if they go ten feet horizontal,the chimney has to be two feet over that roofline. In other words, he has to raise the chimney two feet higher than the point it hits the roof. Chair Ressler clarified in order for this to function it has to be this tall. Mr. Schmidt replied that is correct Page 24 of 28