11-12-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (#02-2837, JEFF DAN BERRY, Continued) Weinberger noted that staff did not support a variance involving a conforming structure, on a conforming lot, built after the standard for the zoning district were established. Staff was concerned that improving a variance for this project might set a negative precedent for additions and alterations to conforming structures on conforming lots. By a vote of S to 2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances. Weinberger noted that it was the majority opinion that white the lot and house were conforming structures, there were unique factors that could be applied to this property that do constitute hardships. Since the property is located at the end of Ivy Place, there is no outlet and the garage addition would not negatively change the character of the neighborhood. Weinberger explained that since the property is on the lakeshore, they would be allowed construction of a detached garage 10’ from the street property line, whereas the proposed garage would be 18’ from the properly line. The Planning Commission felt that the attached garage stall functioned much better for the property than a detached building. The Planning Commission believed that the overall appearance of the property would be enhanced by having an attached garage stall rather than a detached building located nearer the street. Finally, there are several utility easements on the property that impact the building envelope making additions to the house difficult. Weinberger pointed out that it was the minority opinion of the Planning Commission that the approval of a setback variance for a conforming structure on a conforming lot would set a negative precedent, especially since the lot was developed under current zoning standards. Sansevere believed it odd and questioned whether it was a flaw in the building codes that the applicants could be allowed a detached garage 10’ from the street property line versus not being allowed the proposed attached garage 18’ from the street property line. Because it is a lakeshore lot. Weinberger explained that the intent is that proposed garage additions or detached garages would stay in the back yard versus lakeside. Sansevere asked Weinberger if he believed there were legitimate hardships to justify the request. With the exception of the fact that it is a conforming lot with a conforming building, Weinberger stated that the Planning Commission makes a valid argument that it is more aesthetically pleasing to allow the attached garage, if the property owner were to agree that he would not come back and propose a detached building in addition to this application later. Sansevere stated that, if this were viewed as a hardship condition, it would not be seen as precedent setting. Mr. Danberry had nothing to add Murphy indicated that, in his opinion, the attached garage addition would not be out of sorts with the rest of the road and he favored their not losing trees to a detached garage. PAGE 6 of 20 K* ' ] I