Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 19, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Robert Schmidt of Premium Construction approached the podium is here on behalf of the Oares and noted <br />Tim Oare is here today. When they originally submitted this application, the original house was on the <br />property and was torn down. They submitted a plan for a variance to place the house where it is shown. <br />The biggest difficulty was that down the line was the ALS because of the carriage house that sat way up <br />by the road. During the discussion to get the variance, and the other line shown, they basically said it <br />doesn’t make much sense to use the one up front and rather they should reestablish it and set the house <br />using that setback. That is basically why the house is where it is at. Mr. Schmidt said they did not have <br />the chimney on the plan when submitted the first time and all the talk about this variance was the <br />sightline, how far away they were, how close to the lake, and nobody talked about the roofline, shingles, <br />or anything else. They went ahead and put the chimney on and it triggered the variance that it technically <br />did not meet requirements. What Mr. Schmidt is saying is if they would have originally had the chimney <br />on the proposal to get the variance, he does not think anybody would have even brought it up. At this <br />point it seems a little strange and the house is not even built but they are in the process of building the <br />house now. He stated the chimney is lower than the highest peak of the roof, and he gets it, but as a <br />technicality it is a little moot. He said they are looking for the Planning Commission to consider the fact <br />that if they had the chimney on previously, would the Planning Commission have approved it; the fact <br />that the other lakeshore setback to set the house puts the chimney behind lakeshore access. He noted they <br />are using two lakeshore setbacks to determine what to do on this property and he asked to pick one or the <br />other. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler is not familiar with height requirements for wood burning versus gas as far as chimneys go. <br />He asked if there is a minimum they need to have for it to be a wood burning chimney. <br /> <br />Mr. Schmidt said all chimneys need to be two feet higher than any ten foot; he clarified if they go ten feet <br />horizontal, the chimney has to be two feet over that roofline. In other words, he has to raise the chimney <br />two feet higher than the point it hits the roof. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler clarified in order for this to function it has to be this tall. <br /> <br />Mr. Schmidt replied that is correct <br /> <br />Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding the application. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. <br /> <br />McCutcheon thinks Mr. Schmidt has a point and does not think the Planning Commission would have <br />said anything previously. The main thing to him is that it is in the building envelope and he hates to split <br />hairs but asked if the neighbors complained or had comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Oakden noted the Applicant submitted signatures from the neighbors with the neighbor <br />acknowledgement form. <br /> <br />McCutcheon said in hindsight, the chimney is very tall and is at the closest point to the neighbor and <br />maybe the Planning Commission would have said something. He is interested in the rest of the