Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 27, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON,3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE— VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Gaffron explained that the applicants request for an average lakeshore setback variance and a conditional use permit for importation of fill in excess of 500 cubic yards to allow for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property received a 3-3 vote by the Planning Commission at its February 21'meeting. At issue, which deadlocked the Planning Commission,was the 22' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback which the neighbor objected to. Though drainage is an ongoing issue, Gaffron noted that the proposed fill within 5' of the neighbor's lot line which would have visual impact upon the view of the neighbor's wall was not resolved by the Commission and would do little to impact drainage problems. Since this is new construction and should be required to meet setback requirements,Murphy stated that whether or not the existing house meets the average lakeshore setback now is irrelevant. Admittedly an odd average lakeshore setback line,Murphy saw no hardship to warrant any encroachment into the zone, since there was more than adequate room to pull the house back altogether. With regard to the fill,Murphy stated that the lot had been filled many years ago in an effort to help with the drainage. He maintained that, if the house were pulled back out of the average lakeshore setback, they would also need less fill to resolve the drainage. Bill Sjoholm, applicant's attorney, stated that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Commission supported the request for fill,but it was the average lakeshore setback variance which had them at odds.While the applicant has made numerous attempts to make adjustments to the design in order to accommodate this almost unrealistic average lakeshore setback line,they believe there is a hardship here created by the line and the homeowner next door trying to prevent what is being proposed. He continued, explaining that, if the house were pulled back, it would create a tunnel vision effect from the new home through the trees on either side. Sansevere questioned whether the applicant believed that their hardship could be based on the view the average lakeshore setback afforded them. Sansevere asked Brokl whether the view of the lake could be considered a hardship. Brokl stated that, if the Council chose to accept it,the views could be considered a hardship. Sjoholm pointed out that, as proposed,the applicant would not be obstructing the neighbors views of the lake. McMillan questioned whether anything had changed with regard to the landscaping next door, since he had initially purchased the property. Munson stated that his lot seems to serve as a drainage deposit area for both he and his neighbor's runoff. McMillan pointed out that the average lakeshore setback is a principal the City does not often choose to deviate from without a strong hardship. She felt that, in this instance, the applicant could build easily without intruding on this setback. PAGE 7 of 14