Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, APRIL 14,2003 <br />6. #02 ‘28S9 Blake & Mary Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street—Variances—Continued <br />Gaffron stated there needs to be a reasonable width to the house in relation to the lot size. <br />He stated Council should decide whether a 40' or 60 ’ house is reasonable on a 100' wide <br />lot. <br />Murphy stated that he saw no hardships, but couldn't reasonably require 60 ’ of setback on <br />a 100’ lot. Sansevere stated he agrees, but they arc legally bound to find a hardship. <br />White stated he also agreed, but wasn’t comfortable requiring a 30 ’ setback, when the <br />other lots in the neighborhooa all had 10’ or less. <br />Gaffron stated that the lot is somewhat unique because it is 100’ wide in the 2-acrc zone. <br />However, by approving the variance, Council would be setting a precedent to allow 20' <br />setbacks for all 100’ wide lots in 2-acre zones. <br />Moorse stated that approving that variance would, essentially, change the zoning <br />requirements. He suggested doing something with broader implications, along the line of <br />Big Island ’s zoning, where there is cut-off width so lots under 100’ wide are required a <br />10’ setback, and over 100’ are required a 30 ’ setback. He stated Council should consider a <br />category of lots, instead of just one application. <br />Murphy asked what impact the length of the lot has on the house. Gaffron stated it had <br />none because the back half of the lot was inconsequential. The applicant met the <br />hardcover requirements in the 75-250’ zone without considering the e.xtra length to the lot. <br />Sansevere stated that perhaps narrow lots should have narrow houses. <br />Sansevere stated that the 20’ setbacks would have the visual impact of 16 ’ setbacks <br />because of the overhang encroachment. <br />White asked why Big Island ’s zoning is different. Gaffron stated it is because it is <br />seasonal recreational and buildings are smaller, they were regulating reasonable <br />development. <br />Barrett stated that if Council approved the variance, anyone with a 100’ wide lot could <br />claim the same hardship: that it’s the nature of the lot. <br />Bichanich asked how many 100’ wide lots c.xist in the 2-acre zone. Gaffron stated not <br />many, and not all of them are long and narrow. <br />White suggested finding an average side yard setback, as is done for lakeshore setback. <br />Sansevere asked how often similar applications have come and been denied. Gaffron <br />stated none that he was aw are of. Bichanich stated that he and staff had looked for