01-22-03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,January 22, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2859 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, Continued) Chaput reported that the applicants are requesting lot area, width, and setback variances in order to construct a new house in the same location as a house exists today on the property. In order to rebuild a home on this property within the same dimensions as previously granted, variances would be needed for side yard setbacks, 11' to the south and 19.3' to the north where 30' is required, a lot width variance for 100.28' where 200' is required, and lot area variances allowing 1.34 acres where 2 acres are required. In 1993,Resolution#3231 permitted the applicants to construct additions to the existing home with side yard setbacks of 19.3' to the north and 12.7' to the south where 30' is required after two parcels were combined to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Chaput explained that,by current Zoning Ordinance,the existing house is non-conforming and any new structure should be constructed as close to conformity as possible. The proposed plan eliminates a detached garage,which is currently situated over the lot line and onto the neighboring property and proposes an attached garage 10' from the lot line. Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be part of the principal structure,requiring a 30' setback instead of 11' for a detached garage. Chaput identified 7 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and stated that if the Commission felt the applicant should be able to maintain the setbacks permitted from previously approved variances on the property to construct a new house,the application should be granted. However, Chaput stated, if the Commission felt that the new house should be built to meet the required side yard setbacks and not set a precedent for future redevelopment in the area, the application should be tabled to allow the applicant to present an altered plan. Hawn asked if the shed by the lake was ever permitted. Bichanich indicated that the shed had been existing on the site when they purchased the property. Chaput pointed out that it was acknowledged in the 1993 Resolution that it was existing non-conforming and that it could be looked at in the future. Chair Smith asked what the shed was used for. Bichanich stated that he used it mostly for lake storage of water equipment and toys. Mabusth stated that the applicant should be advised that,to be consistent with what's been done in the past with new construction,the City asks that the non-conforming structures within the lakeshore yard be removed. Chair Smith added that the applicant could investigate a lock box in lieu of the storage shed. There were no public comments. Chair Smith asked the Commission where they stood with regard to lot area and lot width variances, as these are usually something that cannot be altered easily. Mabusth stated that this lot has more area than the three remaining lots on the street. PAGE 9 of 29