Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 <br />(#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) <br />Goctten asked what the hardship would be. Kelley indicated the property itself was the <br />hardship. <br />Jabbour asked if the structure is an accessory structure or a garage. Brooks said it was a <br />storage structure. Jabbour indicated that the storage needs with children would not be <br />provided by a lock box but does not see the hardship required for an additional garage. <br />He questioned whether a lO'xlO' structure would be adequate while minimizing the <br />impact. <br />Brooks indicated that at some point of decreasing the structure size, it becomes unusable. <br />He said he is willing to reduce the original 24 ’x24' size to 24'xl8' to accommodate the <br />coi .cems. He noted the front to front dimension was most sensitive and suggested a <br />change to the side dimension while maintaining some sense of proportion. <br />Flint was informed that the structure was not "grandfathered" in due to it being new <br />construction. <br />Brooks indicated that a small size would result in storing items outside during the winter <br />and feels the size is fair considering the number of people residing in the residence and <br />its size. Jabbour said he understood Brooks rationale but felt more land was required for <br />that to occur. <br />Peterson said she did not disagree with the accessory structure itself but with the <br />setbacks and distance from the roadway. She sees a hardship with the distance between <br />the house and the road. Jabbour said the distance to travel from the lake to the house is a <br />hardship noting the applicant has the right for a riparian use of the lake. Goetten said <br />she felt differently regarding hardship. <br />Jabbour reported that the lakeshore should be able to be used in a reasonable manner and <br />requires somewhere to house such belongings. He thought a structure smaller in size <br />than would accommodate a car should be satisfactory. Brooks said while he does have <br />an extra car that could utilize the space, it would not be necessary. <br />Gaffron noted there is a 50' front setback in this zone. <br />Brooks asked if a 3 or 4' setback from the right-of-way instead of 1' could be <br />accommodated. <br />Jabbour noted there is a 19' envelope betv/een the wetland separation and the roadway.