Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />July 10, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Andrew Iverson, 4448 North Shore Drive, said they bought the house in 2019 but it needed a lot of work <br />so they have taken four years to remodel the house into their home. When they purchased the house it had <br />no siding and all the windows were deteriorating, he said. Their family is growing and they want to add <br />on to the house to create a classroom and additional space as well as the rooftop terrace as a safe play <br />space for their children. He pointed to another nearby residence that was approved to have a rooftop <br />terrace. <br /> <br />Mayor Walsh stated the problem with Orono’s smaller lots is that people buy properties with existing <br />conditions that couldn't be put there today, and then want to expand that. He said the applicants were just <br />barely able to squeeze just a little bit of living space out of basically a non-buildable lot. He said he was <br />familiar with the property and that the new owners had done a great job with the remodel to this point. <br /> <br />Johnson noted due to the size of the lot they would never be able to meet the 75-foot setback but asked if <br />there was a way they could improve the situation by building up. He said the applicant is way below the <br />height limit. <br /> <br />Iverson said the house does not have a basement but rather a crawl space and that impacts the ability to <br />have livable space. <br /> <br />Walsh said he can definitely see the problem but not having enough space is not a practical difficulty but <br />rather a personal issue. For the City, the problem is being consistent and not allowing residents to expand <br />non-conformities. He said sometimes people need to know what they are buying. When the City says yes <br />to things, it can’t say no later on to people with the same kind of issue, Walsh said. <br /> <br />Crosby said the biggest issue is creating another non-confirming use where the property is already non- <br />conforming. He suggested tabling it for now and working with the staff to find a compromise. <br /> <br />Benson said in reviewing the Planning Commission notes, the added height and the 75-foot lake setback <br />were called out and that the City has been consistent on that. With small, substandard lakeshore lots <br />there's only so much room, she said, and that's why the Council has been consistent in terms of enforcing <br />that. She suggested it might be worth the applicant’s while to see if they could think of a plan that may <br />give them a little bit more space living space but not be so far into this encroachment on a number of <br />different areas such as height and side setbacks, <br /> <br />Iverson pointed out the house was approved at one time. Now there's new rules and laws and regulations, <br />he said, noting again that they are not trying to encroach any farther towards the lake. He said he feels that <br />they should be “grandfathered” in. <br /> <br />Nye said currently residents are not allowed to build anything within the 75-foot setback. There is a house <br />there but expanding that footprint either out or up increases the non-conformity. The Council appears to <br />be willing to let the applicants fill in within the bubble that they have. She suggested talking to their <br />builder to see if they could possibly get a second story within the same ridge line. <br /> <br />Johnson said he would not be in favor of any expansion of the existing footprint. If this was someone that <br />was going to build a new house, he said he would be in favor of letting them use the footprint that exists.