Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> is not within the setback so almost anything they add does not comply with the ordinance.In order to <br /> mediate that they are setting it back so the eaves and the second level do not cross the property line. <br /> Ms. Severson noted if they went 10 feet they would not be able to fit the bedrooms. <br /> McCutcheon asked if the Applicant considered adding on to the south where there is more yard-space. <br /> Ms. Severson noted they are trying to maintain the same footprint because of the detached garage and the <br /> house is really finished on the back, and there are mature oak trees they do not want to tear down. <br /> Mr.Eckert noted they are trying to put the garage in a similar area as the detached garage,so it did not <br /> make sense to come in from the south in this design. <br /> McCutcheon is sensitive to the fact that the Applicant purchased the property because of its beauty,do not <br /> want to tear down trees, and are maintaining the existing footprint. <br /> Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. <br /> Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. <br /> Chair Kirchner does not have a problem with what is shown in lavender on screen and trying to connect <br /> the home,he does struggle with the second story resulting in a zero lot line setback, as well as some of the <br /> existing encroachments. <br /> Bollis thinks the lavender makes sense but he thinks the second story makes sense,as well.They are not <br /> building directly up and are doing a good job to make the situation better. He does not think the second <br /> story is egregious in any way. <br /> McCutcheon agrees with Bollis,the footprint is already there.He asked if they want to say"don't reinvest <br /> in your property because it's already in a situation that isn't ideal for the City."It is what it is and the City <br /> will not force them to tear it down.He noted if they were trying to ask for more and go outside the <br /> footprint that would be a hard no,but he can support this variance. <br /> Ressler stated this one is more difficult and he is trying to relate to some of the others they have looked at <br /> such as a boathouse.The Commission is allowing people to maintain things that are encroaching but they <br /> draw a pretty hard line when those things are zero or over the line such as this one.He said it makes it <br /> more difficult to fix if the City allows an addition to it.Ressler does not think they need to have the house <br /> relocated but also does not think they would be making it any easier by adding structure within the 35 <br /> foot setback and worsening an already bad situation. He wants to make something work. <br /> Libby appreciates that they have tried to utilize a cantilever effect to gain some additional bedrooms and <br /> space.However it exacerbates an existing problem as it increases the encroachment.He agrees with Staff <br /> somewhat in that practical difficulty is hard to establish;he would tend to favor this as what the Applicant <br /> is asking for seems to be the only solution to the dilemma of the housing need for their family.Libby <br /> would tend to be in favor of granting the variance. <br /> Ressler noted there could be buildable areas,noting they would lose a lot of backyard but that is where <br /> the house is supposed to be under City guidelines.He does not know if that is practical difficulty. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />