07-16-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINLTFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21,2001 (lfOl.2075 DONNA LILE.CONTINIT.D) and 140 fool width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still exist today according to StalTs report. Discussion was also held on the matter of “single separate ownership”, and it was indicated had the property been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property having the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership, which was the case w ith the neighbtsring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Koesler dises not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted appmval of the variances previousl). Waldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two prx^perties and that this application should be approved as 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 actualK slightK smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg staled at the time the approval was gran*«.xl. the lot was 50 feet by 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure w^s pennitted to be built on this property, the ncigliborhsvHi unifonnity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside fnmt the fact that this application does not dilTer from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot. Waldron indicated the property owner is being depriv ed of all practical use of that propertv. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even a. le to place a dock on that propertv. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakcshore lot. Roeslcr stated at the time she purchased the propertv. she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had been declared unbuildable. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's intentions were to construct a house on the lake lot. Roeslcr stated that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at the tint... mid inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application. Gaffron stated that application was approved approximately 28 or 29 ve.irs ago and the records in the City’s possession at this lime give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron stated City StalT could do an analysis of similar sized lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation woald be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. GafTron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12