Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,March 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Commission can say this is not a hardship. She hopes the Commission can look at it as an exception.If <br /> any of them had to redo their furnace room and electrical room and they had to be doubled in size,she <br /> wondered what room they would give up. <br /> Mr. Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, stated he is the contractor.He said the bathrooms and the concrete <br /> floor are staying where they are. If you build a utility room,you need a floor drain and other items. If <br /> there is a fire,it should be like-kind,and if they have to tear up a floor or move a bathroom,the insurance <br /> company will not cover that.They are trying to do like-kind and have exhausted a lot of different options <br /> regarding heating systems.He stated they have done the best job they could for the least impact.The <br /> house was built in the 1950s,and they built on the original footprint and foundation. <br /> Gettman presented a scenario of the code changing which required mechanical areas to be a 12x12 square <br /> where it pushed it out to the same utility room,and asked if the Commission would also deny that. <br /> Curtis asked for clarification. <br /> Gettman reiterated his non-rhetorical question and said--without moving stairs,digging down,or <br /> moving in any particular direction--if that is the only way to get like-kind. <br /> Curtis stated that it isn't like-kind; it is expanding the envelope of the building. She understands the <br /> applicant needs to retrofit the system, and if the Commission feels it is a practical difficulty,then that's <br /> how they can move forward. However, it is an expansion of the building within the setback. <br /> Ressler asked whether,if the expansion of the building were not within the area of red on the diagram,it <br /> would be a different scenario. <br /> Curtis said the 75-foot setback is impactful. She stated there are also 2 variances. <br /> Ressler asked what Staff's opinion would be if the red area was removed from the application and the <br /> proposal was just within the yellow,rather than the yellow and the orange. <br /> Curtis indicated Staffs opinion would be different. She noted there is a purpose for each of the setbacks. <br /> Ressler said he does not have a problem with the location. He noted that his house was built by his <br /> grandfather in the 1950s,they had a similar tragedy happen,and they had the same difficulties trying to <br /> replace within the same building envelope.He stated that given the lack of input from neighbors,there is <br /> no opposition.He is trying to find a way to make it as compliant as possible.He can see this being <br /> approved as applied by the City Council.He tends to lean toward being in favor of the addition as long as <br /> the addition does not encroach upon the area. <br /> Libby stated he thinks the applicant has made an articulate appeal to the relatively small square footage. <br /> Trying to borrow from other ideas and innovation and seeing other problem-solving, including recent <br /> changes in efficiencies of HVACs,his opinion would be to retract the 3 feet,keep it within the envelope, <br /> and the approval process would not have to be gone through for the variance. <br /> Ressler stated the recommendation could be approved as applied also. <br /> Doepke asked if any specific alternatives were considered. <br /> Page 9 of 16 <br />