Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 21, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 9 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br /> <br />Penny Saiki, 2874 Casco Point Road, stated they knew about this from the beginning and if the owner <br />didn’t know, the builder did. To say one cannot get out of their garage is a poor design and whoever <br />designed it knew a 24 foot radius for a car is normal. The inside of the house is huge and they could have <br />moved the garage up and had less of a foyer. Ms. Saiki stated it is bad planning on their part and it was <br />not included on the permit. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. <br /> <br />Ressler stated it makes sense for a turnaround to be there, however making sense is not a practical <br />difficulty. Approving this would establish precedence for others with this type of application. That is <br />where Ressler struggles. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon stated in Orono one needs to know about average lakeshore setback (ALS) and he sees <br />three structures now within the ALS which is a bad thing. The City cares about the lake and does not want <br />runoff into the lake. The rules are there for a reason. <br /> <br />Kraemer thinks the public comment received that it was very poor planning is very, very accurate. He <br />does not think the Commission wants to set precedent in granting variances after the fact and it is a big <br />red flag. It says that it is okay to do what one wants and then come back and ask for forgiveness. He feels <br />bad that the homeowner did not get better advice or planning on this, but he has a hard time agreeing with <br />the application. <br /> <br />Libby noted this could have been remedied if there had been consultation with City engineering; it would <br />have been recommended to build a little less house to allow for a different form of driveway access. The <br />Applicant may not have realized the importance of pulling permits but one cannot create their own <br />practical difficulty and could have built a slightly smaller house. He is not in support and agrees with <br />Staff’s recommendations. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon agrees with Libby. <br /> <br />Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to deny LA22-000051 Paul Taunton, 3600 Ivy Place VOTE: Ayes: <br />4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />4. LA22-000055 ESKUCHE DESIGN, 3838 CHERRY AVENUE, REQUESTS VARIANCES <br />FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, AND <br />HARDCOVER IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME. <br /> <br />Sara and Travis Wildenberg, Applicants, were present. <br /> <br />City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the existing home on the property is situated <br />almost entirely lakeward of the 75-foot setback line; most of the home is also within the average <br />lakeshore setback. The Applicant provided an updated narrative, not included in the planning report, <br />which was emailed and placed at the Commissioners’ seats. It includes a revised practical difficulty <br />analysis. The majority of the existing single story home is situated lakeward of the average lakeshore and <br />75-foot lake setbacks. The lake side deck projects over the OHWL and the lake. The Applicant is