Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler agrees.The precedent in Orono follows the recommendation by Staff in trying to be agreeable to <br /> a reasonable building envelope and stay within the guidelines they have.He would support Staff's <br /> recommendation. <br /> Bollis agrees.There is no doubt there is practical difficulty on the lot with the legal building envelope. He <br /> likes the intent of the exchange for the hardcover within the 75 foot setback but would like to see <br /> something closer to a 1-to-1 exchange. <br /> Mr. Bergstrom reiterated that he would be removing approximately 85 feet in that setback area. If the goal <br /> is to stabilize erosion,which is the point of the hardcover issues for drainage;this meets and actually <br /> exceeds that goal in a precious area by eliminating more hardcover area and reduces that. As for the <br /> definition of reasonable,he would like to understand that if all decks bigger than this are now considered <br /> unreasonable,he would think that will affect many other houses potentially being built in the City—if the <br /> Commission defines anything bigger than this as an unreasonable request. <br /> Kirchner shared that Mr. Bergstrom's request is not unreasonable,the overall thought is there is a <br /> reasonable use of the property at this time.A home is there for year-round use and the owner is being <br /> afforded the opportunity to use the lot in a single family residential manner as zoned.As for removing <br /> hardcover within it, a vast majority of applications the Commission sees involves hardcover from decades <br /> prior that is already within that,which would set a bad precedent if they said because they are removing <br /> some hardcover that they will allow other intrusions into that space to then be allowed. <br /> Mr. Bergstrom pointed out in the survey,he did not know when building a house for his family,that they <br /> were not able to do this and he understands there is a legal gray area of an existing house in that structure. <br /> They intentionally worked with the City to pull that back and he does not see a great way besides putting <br /> a hallway on a deck to work inside of that. He noted it would be a very small corner, less than 10 square <br /> feet in total in that area;he showed the house that was torn down less than two years ago on screen. <br /> Kirchner noted the Commission has a note from a neighbor stating they have no concerns with the <br /> proposal. <br /> Ressler stated the Commission has to work with what they have as guidelines for the City. There have <br /> been other applications that have had as reasonable or more reasonable means for approving the <br /> application—however,it has been made loud-and-clear that the City Council does not necessarily agree <br /> and they draw a pretty hard line on meeting the defined practical difficulties. He thinks that will be the <br /> pushback regardless of the outcome of the Commission's vote. Once it gets to the Council it is not <br /> necessarily something that is granted. <br /> Libby asked the applicant if there is any resistance to modify the proposed deck in a more linear manner <br /> in the front where the encroachment into the 75 foot setback is, bringing the deck front,back,equal,to <br /> deck B.He asked Curtis if that would bring it back enough out of the 75 foot setback? <br /> Mr. Bergstrom would be willing to do that,he has met with the City several times and sent dozens of <br /> emails,and the hardship is the corner of the deck. He would be absolutely open to any work around to try <br /> to enjoy the hardcover space up to 25%. <br /> Libby said the encroachment into the 75 foot setback and the surface area of the patio are really not a <br /> trade-off because there would still be a remaining encroachment in to the 75 with the physical location of <br /> Page 3 of 21 <br />