11-22-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 25,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 10. #04-3055 DR. MARTHA SPEiNCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES Curtis explained that the applicant was requesting a hardcover variance within the 0-^5’ setback in order to construct a gazebo and install paved walking paths, and a lake setback variance to construct the gazebo 22’ from the OHWL where a ISO' setback is required and a 45’ setback currently exists. Although the applicant was granted a 0-7S’ setback variance in the summer of 2004 to convert concrete patios to decks within the 150’ structure setback from the OHWL 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 ha''dship 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, *>tated that it was their intent to make the backyard usable and safer. Dr. Spencer pointed out that these items were inadvertently left out cf the previous application and noted that the earlier application actually decreased hardcover. She indicated that it was difficult to maneuver the property due to her pl';,sic«l limitations, as well as, acknowledged the desire to view more of the yard and stay away from mosquitoes. Muipiiy stated that the Council could not gmi - hardship to correct a building error net communicated to the city by a previous contractor. He stated that, in fact, the applicant would have had a difTicult time getting this request approved this summer also had it been included Ritter asked the City Attorney if any ‘gracdfutheiing ’ was appli'able to this property since it existed prior to the Shcrcland Ordinances. Barrett stated that it is within the City’s :bil ty 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 nonconfo.’-ming structures, additions to those nonconformances are subject to new ordinance. (10. #04-3055 DR. MARTHA SPENCER, 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, Continued) Sansevere maintained fnat, if the applicant could demonstrate to the Council that there was a hardship, the Council could support the application. Ritter argued that ihe backyard was functional p'-ior to the shoreland ordinance.