11-08-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 25,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. 8. #04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES Mayor Peterson moved, Sanseverc seconded, to table the application for Eric Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, at the applicant’s request. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #04-3053 BART AND BETSY BUTZER/AULIK DESIGN GROl P, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5239 White moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5239, a resolution granting a lake setback variance for 2625 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #04-3055 DR. MARTHA SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES Cunis explained that the applicant was requesting a hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback in order to construct a ga/ebo and install paved walking paths, and a lake setback variance to construct the gazebo 22’ from the OHWL where a 150’ setback is required and a 45’ setback currently exists. Although the applicant was granted a 0-75’ setback variance in the summer of 2004 to convert concrete patios to decks within the 150’ structure setback from the OlIVVL of French Lake, Curtis noted that it is the applicant’s assertion that this additional request was to have a been a part of that original application. Curtis stated that staff concurred with the Planning Commission ’s unanimous recommendation for denial of the hardcover and setback variances based on lack of sufficient hardship. Sansevere asked whether there was hardship for the initial variance request. Gaffron noted that there was hardship for the previous application; however, none exist for this application. Mark Ritter, applicant’s representative, stated that it was their intent to make the backyard usable and safer. Dr. Spencer pointed out that these items were inadvertently left out of the previous application and noted that the earlier application actually decreased hardcover. She indicated that it was dilTicult to maneuver the property due to her physical limitations, as well as. acknow ledged the desire to view- more of the yard and stay aw-ay from mosquitoes. Murphy stated that the Council could not grant hardship to correct a building error not communicated to the city by a previous contractor. He stated th.’!, ir. fact, the applicant would have had a difficult time getting fnis request approved this summer also had it been included. Ritter asked the City Attorney if any ‘grandfathering’ was applicable to this property since it existed prior to the Shoreland Ordinances. Barrett stated that it is w ithin the City’s ability to grant variances to the shoreline ordinance. Gaffron stated that many legal nonconforming properties were created by shoreline ordinance; however, while they exist as legal nonconforming structures, additions to those nonconformances are subject to new ordinance. P.\GE6of 10 •i