03-16-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued) Since the Commission had viewed MacDonald's presentation the last time. Chair Smith encouraged him to be brief and focus on the portion of the presentation that focused on their specific hardship. MacDonald began reiterating that the overlay Ordinance is what has created the hardship for smaller lots. He pointed out that they had succeeded in removing all of the hardcover from the 0-75 ’ setback zone, and reduced the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone from 47»/o to 30%. Chair Smith asked if what MacDonald was really requesting w ould be that the Ordinance be revised from the existing 25% allow ance. MacDonald noted that, while on a 2 acre lot in the zoning district, a 12.000 s.f home is more than ample, on a 50’ lot, 25% creates a small ‘dog house’. He maintained that special consideration must be given to smaller lots and pointed out that Orono is one of the only lakes communities that subtracts the 0-75 ’ from its hardcover equation. He shared what he believed to be applications in which variances for hardcover over 25% were granted. Chair Smith indicated that it was not up to the Commission to rewTite the variances this evening and suggested Mr. MacDonald hold conversations to that end with the City Council as well. ^ \i hile shape, grade, and drainage all constitute elements ofhardships, Hawn stated that unfortunately, size alone cannot constitute the hardship. She reminded the public that the vjmancc and Ordinance process is not a perfect science and that, occasionally, mistakes are Bremer maintained that many of the applications cited by the architect were remodels, and not new constniction, therefore the approvals for those variances may be misleading. Gaffron concurred, stating that the comparison of remodels to new construction was like comparing ‘apples to oranges’. MacDonald encouraged the Commission to look at the intent of the variance. He maintained that his applicant was proposing to create a better situation for the lots He believed the City had gotten to a point of being too legalistic, and not considering each spccifie application on its own merits. Once again, he encouraged the Commission to w eigh w hat would be best for the property versus the o\erall consequences of their decisions. PAGE 14 of 39