06-18-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moiday. May 21,2001 (HOI-2675 DONNA LILt, CONTINUED) and 140 fool width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still e.xi l today according to Staff s report. Discussion was also held on the matter of “single separate ownersJiip*. and it was indicated had the proper*;, been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property hav ing the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership, which was the case with the neighboring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Roesicr diKs not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted approval of the variances previously. W'aldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two properties and that this application should be approved os well. Smith inquired whether the Applicant is considering those two lots the same for comparison purposes. Waldron stated that is correct. Waldron indicated the lot that was granted variances is actually slightly smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg stated at the time the approval was granted, the lot was 50 feet b> 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure was permitted to be built on this property , the neighborhood uniformity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside from the fad that this application docs not differ from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot. Waldron indicated the property ow ner is being deprived of all practical use of that property. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even able to place a dock on that property There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakeshore lo*. Rocsier stated at the time she purchased the property, she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had lieen declared unhuildabic. Smith inquired whether the Applicant’s intentions were lo construct a house on the take lot. Rocsier staled that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at tlie time, and inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application Gaffron stated that application was approved appro.\imately 28 or 29 years ago and the records in the City’s possession at this lime give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron staled City Staff could do an analysis of similar si/cd lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation would be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. Gaffron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12