10-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 12, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 27 of 37 13.#15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued) At that time Debra asked for additional information, which was provided. Shortly before the September 21 Planning Commission meeting, she found out that the variance was a little bit more than what she thought it would be. A meeting was held with Debra and her husband and the applicants. At that time Mr. Gustafson stuck a stake in the ground and they agreed to a specific spot on the property, which is the reason she was in agreement at the Planning Commission meeting. Subsequently to that time, Debra found out that that was not the location of the proposed improvements and they were, in fact, three to four closer to the lake and two to four feet higher. Huntley stated that was the reason for her alarm and the reason why she wanted to address the City Council, which is when she contacted him. Huntley stated Debra might not necessarily object to the current plans but that she wants more information. Since Debra has been out of town, she has not been able to view the stakes, and that she is basically in a position where she feels she has to argue against the variance. Huntley stated Debra does not feel the need for the variance has anything to do with the fireplace. Huntley distributed two pictures to the Council of the area in question. Huntley stated the view appears to be better from the actual setback line and that the fireplace is off to the left. If you look behind the fireplace, there is really not a view of the lake since there are trees and shrubs in that area. Huntley stated in their view the fireplace is a moot point. Huntley stated the average lakeshore setback variance goes against the harmony and purpose of the ordinance. Huntley stated as is evident from the picture, there is really no interference of the view of the lake and the fireplace does not pose a practical difficulty. In addition, the applicants purchased the home knowing that the fireplace was there. Huntley noted there is also nothing preventing his client from planting trees and other shrubs that would interfere with the view even more. Huntley stated to summarize, there is no practical difficulty that is being caused by the fireplace, and that if it is determined to be a practical difficulty, anything could conceivably be considered a practical difficulty. Huntley stated if the proposed structure is going to be higher than the current structure, the only person feeling the impact will be Ms. Callahan. Huntley stated even though Ms. Callahan is arguing against the variance tonight, that does not necessarily mean that she is opposed to any variance and that she is willing to live with the plan as originally presented to her McMillan asked where the stake was originally. Huntley indicated it was approximately three to four feet further back. McMillan asked if she is comfortable with a 3-foot variance but not a 6-foot. Huntley stated he believes so.