02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WcdMstfay, Jasiary 22,2M3 6:30 o*cl«ck pm. (M2-2aSf BLAKE AND MARY MCHAMCH. CmOwmO) Btchmich stmcd that the current home is 70’ wide and the proposed will virtually sit in the identical position as the existing home except for moving the garage off the property luie. Rahn staled that the application is for new construction strsus the additions and remodels of 1993. \ OTE: Ayes 3, Nays 4, Friulcr. Hawn, Chair Smith, and Rahn dbacaltag. Hawn stated that she would support the home being centered on the property. Rahn reiterated that a 40’ wide building pod and very deep lot did not constitute a hardship to him. He believed the issue was Oiat, unfortunately, a wide house was designed for a narrow lot. GaflnHi reiterated that the applicant had been faced with meeting impossible standards since the lot did not match the zoning code. He added that, over the past 20 years, people have purcha:.cd multiple lots and combined them to build bigger homes gt\ing Orono a multitude of lot sizes. Hawn nwvcd, Chair Smith seconded, to approve Application 002-2859, Blake and Mary Bkhaakh, granting lot area and hM width variancct, and side yard aethacks of 20’ on either side of the res idence because it is a long and narrow shaped let In order to constrnci a new house on the property located at 332 Westlake Street. Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to vote on this motion or table the application. Bichanich indicated that he would prefer the Commission table the application. He reiterated that he had combined two non-conforming lots in an eflbrt to bnng them more into conformity 9 years ago. whereas, what he has found is that he would have been better off keeping two 50 ’ lots. Knowing what he docs today, he questioned what the incentive for anytme would be to buy two lots for combination, thereby doubling their land cost, for a mere 2S"« more house. Chair Smith stated that they would table the application and encouraged the applicant to redesign the home and garage to meet a minimum I S’ side yard setback on either side. Hawn withdrew her molhiu. Mabusth Mated that as it stands, it feels as if the house was not designed to fit a long narrow bt. After further consideration. Bichanich felt that a 60 ’ wide home could be acceptable and asked to move forward w ith the 20’ side yard setbacks. Chair Smith stated that they could move the application forward to the Council without seeing it again if the Commission agreed. Although he would vote favorably if the applicant chose to accept 20’ setbacks, Hannaford reiterated that mandating a 20’ setback sounded arbitrary . PAGE 12 of 29