Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> JANUARY 23,2023 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> those two additional patio areas but by the time we were at Planning Commission,we had included them <br /> in his after-the-fact hardcover setback variance for review. <br /> Johnson said at the Planning Commission meeting the representative of the of the applicant said that the <br /> patios were kind of new information to them at that time. <br /> Curtis said the city requires a hard cover permit to install patios and driveways. They would not have <br /> been approved at a staff level where they're located. But we did not know they were there when the <br /> driveway violation happened. <br /> Mr. Taunton said I was not aware that you needed to pull a permit for pervious,you know,that water <br /> sinks through it. So I was not aware that I needed to pull a permit. If I needed to pull a permit,I would <br /> have pulled one. They're not big patios. Again,I thought if it was pervious that you did not need to pull a <br /> permit. <br /> Johnson said with respect to my opinion on it, it wouldn't matter if he knew about a permit or not. This is <br /> not allowable hardcover. This is a design flaw. It's just not up to the city council to fix a design flaw.And <br /> I'm not sure if what Victoria brought up,that little extra extension between,I guess they don't have to <br /> actually have a drive-through--it could stop short but that. But again, it's not our job to get into the <br /> design side of it either. From my opinion,this is not allowable hard cover and it needs to be removed. I <br /> would be supportive of waiting until the spring or until it can all be dealt with at one time, including the <br /> replacement hard cover. <br /> Walsh said he didn't think it's really a design flaw as much as we just know that developers want to <br /> maximize the amount of space they can build in. And sometimes they build too much house, and they <br /> don't leave enough driveway, or enough room for a really big fire pit. But the problem is,that's what they <br /> did is they maximized the house and didn't leave room for a lot of stuff.And there's lots of houses like <br /> that,that people buy and they find out after the fact they can't add a deck and they can't do anything, <br /> because they made the house so big. That's what I think what you've got here is a brand-new house that <br /> just maximized everything you could do and left you at the bare minimum amount of driveway and not a <br /> lot of room except in that little itty bitty kind of point to build a put a fire pit. But I agree with Matt,that's <br /> a creation of the development itself. You can't create your own practical difficulty. <br /> Seals said she appreciates the applicant apologizing. I was just asking staff about codes and ordinances so <br /> I can see where that can happen. I don't think there's an assumption that you had malicious intent. I think <br /> we've been pretty consistent about the 75-foot setback.I remember this whole development very <br /> distinctively. There were conversations around whether there should even be a lot because there were <br /> conversations as to whether they filled in the wetland and all those things. I feel like there's been, I don't <br /> want to say a lot of giving,but we did talk through a lot of discussion around turning around with the fire <br /> truck, and all those conversations did happen. I did talk to the planning commission and understood <br /> where they're coming from.I do support that we need to remove those three and protect the 75-foot <br /> setback. <br /> Page 5 of 12 <br />