08-17-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO;Mayor Butler Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Orono Council Members Planning Commission Members FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator September 5, 1986 #1056 Olai HansoUr 1390 Railroad Avenue - Variance List of Exhibits - A - Sketch showing staked location and septic conflicts B - Memo and Exhibits of 8/14/86 C - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/18/86 This is a request for a side setback variance to construct detached garage. Applicant has staked the proposed garage at 9'4" from the side lot line at one corner and 6'9" from the side lot line at the other corner (see Exhibit D-2). His original reasons for the variance were that moving the garage further from the side lot line would create an extreme angle of entrance into the garage. An additional reason recently stated is that the former septic tank location is at the opposite side and remnants of drainfield at the rear, and he wishes to avoid putting a garage slab over these disturbed soj1 areas. Staff has verified the location of these disturbed areas but no engineer has attempted to determine the feasibility of putting a slab over them. The neighbor to the north, Mr. Golden, contests the validity of the lot line based on an older survey. Golden also objects based on the proximity of pro; jsed garage to his garden. This is discussed further in the memo of ®/14/86. Although staff feels that it is most likely that applicants survey is probably correct, the City runs the risk of becoming a party to any lawsuit by Golden if the variance is granted based on applicants claimed lot line, and perhaps risks being party to a lawsuit by Hanson if the variance is denied based in part on the contested lot line. Staff Recomendation - 1. In order to approve. Council should find that Hanson's hardships of disturbed soil locations and ease of direct access justify the variance in spite of objections by Golden regarding the garden area, ana should state that the variance is granted for the proposed location based on factors other than the lot lire location. 2. In order to deny, make the opposite findings, that tne Hanson hardships do not justify the variance regardless of where the lot line IS . 3. A third alternative, which may be the most prudent action, is to table until such time that the applicant and his neighbor legally resolve the lot line dispute. Note that neither party has filed suit against the other nor has a strong intent to do so been stated. O