Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,June 21,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> difficulty. Staff finds the existing home to be the limiting factor and recommends denial lacking practical <br /> difficulty. <br /> John Peterson,2880 Fox Street,noted the front of the home is one story and the back it is a walkout with <br /> two stories.He noted the defined height in Orono is hard in this situation. <br /> Libby asked about the need for the higher-than-average height. <br /> Mr.Peterson replied it is mostly for a wood shop the extra height would be for dust collection,ventilation <br /> ductwork,and perhaps eventually a car lift. <br /> Libby noted City Council has been very consistent on these building heights and Mr. Peterson might be <br /> well-served to modify the plan. <br /> Mr.Peterson replied there is a third design if this one fails and he has also thought about adding on to the <br /> back of the garage,however he does not know what that would cost. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.There were no public comments. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. <br /> Kirchner's biggest hang up is the identified practical difficulty,that the primary structure is causing an <br /> issue to an accessory structure. He does not see that as a practical difficulty. <br /> Bollis does not know but would guess the intent of the ordinance is that if one is looking at a flat piece of <br /> property they do not want an accessory building towering over it. He noted this will be 10 feet lower than <br /> the house and he can see the practical difficulty in that the shed will not be able to be used for the specific <br /> use as it must be"shorter"than normal.Bollis thinks it meets the intent of the Code but reiterated he was <br /> not here to write the Code. <br /> Ressler said,having been in the seat of an Applicant, Staff recommendations carry a lot of weight and <br /> following them gives the best likelihood to succeed.His feedback is that demonstrating improvements to <br /> situations have been a good example, even tonight. In situations like these,he will always go to the <br /> recommendations of Staff as a default because they are far more qualified than he is. <br /> Libby commented that denial is based on practical difficulty and it has not been established. <br /> Erickson agrees with Staff recommendation for denial due to lack of practical difficulty. <br /> Ressler thinks the language in the ordinance is intended to not allow a massive accessory building that <br /> towers over the principal residence;however,that is not what this application is as it is downgrade from <br /> the principal structure. On a larger scale,he asked if Staff would be interested in exploring how that <br /> ordinance is written in the future. <br /> Chair McCutcheon would be in favor of looking at a modification to the ordinance. <br /> Kirchner moved,Ressler seconded,to deny LA22-000029 2880 Fox Street,Variance request. <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br />