04-15-1991 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T < ^ ” ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (13)ZONING FILE #1632-MARTIN CONTINUED Bellows asked when the property was sewered. Mabusth replied, 1966.” That area received municipal sewer in Bellows said, "That property was assessed for one sewer unit. That to me says that in 1966, the City no longer viewed this property for multiple use, and that provides a basis to say that the decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit in 1979 for a duplex does not have to be upheld." It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to table this application to allow Staff and the applicant to look further into the issues raised by the Planning Commission. Johnson stated that in his opinion, the property is suited for a duplex, given its location to Highway 15 and commercial property. He added however, that the property may not lend itself for construction. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#4)ZONING PILE #1633-ANDREW MCDERMOTT 2702 WALTERS PORT LANE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Andrew McDermott was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. Mabusth provided a brief summary of her memo dated April 7.0, 1991, pertaining to this application for a rear setback Variance to construct a deck, three-season porch and bath addition. She noted that she had not heard anything from the neighbor west of Mr. McDermott upon which the addition would have the most impact. Cohen noted that Mr. McDermott is not proposing to increase hardcover on the property, and the house has betan 11 feet from the rear lot line since 1969, when it was constructed. Hanson stated that it bothers him somewhat to have such a nassive addition off the back of a house situated only 11 feet from the property line. He added, however, that the rear of the property is adjacent to Pence Lane, where there is adequate screening. As there ware no public comments pertaining to this application, Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by^ Moos, to recommend approval of the rear setback Variance to construct an addition. The hardships are the peculiar nature of the property, the applicant’s existing floor plan in relation to the proposed addition, and the fact that the house he 3 encroached into the 30 foot rear setback area for 23 years. Cohen added that the City - 6 - V A >■ -■ ■ b