Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,August 15,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> proposed location is not supported by practical difficulty, although it slightly improves the lake views <br /> from the adjacent home from the existing condition.There is a conforming building envelope on the <br /> property to support the Applicant's proposed home footprint. Finding inadequate practical difficulties to <br /> support the request,Planning Staff recommends denial. <br /> Bob Heim,3005 Casco Point Road,stated this was a three lot parcel and they decided to split it to two <br /> parcels based on feedback from the City and neighbors.Now they are trying to build homes that conform <br /> with the other homes so they are essentially in a line.Moving the house forward cuts down on the <br /> sightline of the neighbor's pool, although they could plant shrubs on the side to hide the pool.Neighbors <br /> on both sides agree with the plan. <br /> Michael Gorman,2987 Casco Point Road,noted they are trying to balance a consistent setback along <br /> what was formerly Lakeshore Avenue.This does require a variance based on where the homes are located <br /> but it was designed intentionally and showed the line of homes on screen. <br /> Sven Gustafson,general contractor, spoke about preserving the Goodwin's sightline. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. <br /> Dan Seidel,3015 Casco Point,supports the plan and thinks they put a lot of care and time into it.He <br /> stated the reason his house is in its current location is because they took care not to block the Hartswell <br /> house or to loom over the house next to them. The setback is improving on the house next to his as it is <br /> being moved back,and they have talked about not putting a forest in to preserve Mr. Seidel's lake view <br /> which he appreciates. He thinks they have a chance to line up the historic homes for the next 100 years. <br /> He asked about drainage across the street and wonders if pushing it back will affect those drainage issues. <br /> Mr. Seidel supports this plan and looks forward to having them as neighbors. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon appreciates the Applicant taking the feedback from 3 lots to 2 lots.He noted they put some <br /> thought into the plans in looking at drainage points,the neighbor's pool and respecting their privacy, and <br /> the uniformity of the look of the proposed house. <br /> Kraemer agrees it is a win-win and it is always great to see neighbor support. It improves things for <br /> everyone and gives more consistency to the neighborhood and it looks good. <br /> Erickson noted he may be biased as he started on a property with three homes on it and he tore down two <br /> so now there is one.He spoke about Staffs concerns,especially number 12 of the practical difficulties. <br /> He said when one has the option to build in a different location that conforms with Code, it then <br /> concludes the request is a convenience to the property owner rather than a practical difficulty. Erickson <br /> stated State law dictates standards for practical difficulty and if they cannot make that standard the law <br /> forbids the City and Council from approving it. <br /> Kirchner echoes Mr. Erickson and finds it difficult to identify practical difficulties with this application. <br /> He does not believe practical difficulties are established and would not support the application. <br /> Peterson suggested giving it back to the architect and making it conform to the guidelines. <br /> Page 8 of 9 <br />