Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> September 18,2023 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> percent which results in the property becoming closer to conformance with the 25 percent limitation. <br /> Structural coverage is proposed at 18.6 percent where a maximum of 20 percent is permitted. Ivy Place is <br /> narrow and does not accommodate any on-street parking. Further,due to the constricted width of the <br /> roadway,maneuverability in the neighborhood is also challenging,she said. <br /> Mike Sharratt,the designer and builder,said it is unique to have a client ask for a smaller house. They are <br /> reducing the footprint. The new house would be 100 square feet smaller. Setbacks have been maintained <br /> or improved. They are trying to be good stewards of the ordinances and environment. <br /> Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. <br /> Bollis said it is a very thoughtful design and they are exceeding the variances. The only variances they are <br /> proposing are what they can't change. <br /> Kirchner pointed out the reduction in total hardcover. <br /> Ressler moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA23-000048,3548 Ivy Place,Variances as applied. <br /> VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. <br /> 4. LA23-000049 STONEWOOD,3001 CASCO POINT ROAD,REQUESTS AN AFTER- <br /> THE-FACT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A ROOFED <br /> PORCH <br /> City Planner Curtis said the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance <br /> for a roofed porch. 3001 Casco Point Road and 3005 Casco Point Road(CPR)are being redeveloped by <br /> the same builder, Stonewood. It was their plan to build both new homes nearly simultaneously. Prior to <br /> construction,the applicant completed an action to combine the then existing three lots into two(which is <br /> the current configuration). The applicant is currently building the new homes on both properties.Their <br /> intent was to submit for the permit to build 3001 CPR first to situate the home in the current placement, <br /> which would have been permitted.However,due to a submittal timing error for the permits for the two <br /> properties,as well as an inconsistency between the construction plans and the survey, a roofed, lake side <br /> porch was constructed lakeward of the average lakeshore setback.A non-roofed patio would be permitted <br /> in the current location. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact approval of an average lakeshore <br /> setback variance for the roofed porch on the lake side of the home at 3001 CPR. The applicant has <br /> identified the timing of permit submittal construction and an administrative error as practical difficulties <br /> supporting the requested variance and have provided supporting documentation.Regarding practical <br /> difficulty,Curtis said,the application submittal timing appears to be the primary issue. The applicants' <br /> plans were not coordinated and the roofed portion of the lakeside porch was not depicted correctly on the <br /> survey. Staff finds the porch location to be consistent with the Code,had the permits been submitted in <br /> the applicants' preferred order. The neighboring property owners on each side have submitted their <br /> support for the current encroachment. <br /> Bollis confirmed that if the applications been processed in the right order there would be no need for a <br /> variance,covered patio or not. <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br />