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) Bichanich stated that the current home is 70' wide and the proposed will virtually sit in the identical position as the existing home except for moving the garage off the property line. Rahn stated that the application is for new construction versus the additions and remodels of 1993. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 4, Fritzler,Hawn,Chair Smith,and Rahn dissenting. Hawn stated that she would support the home being centered on the property. Rahn reiterated that a 40' wide building pad and very deep lot did not constitute a hardship to him. He believed the issue was that,unfortunately, a wide house was designed for a narrow lot. Gaffron reiterated that the applicant had been faced with meeting impossible standards since the lot did not match the zoning code. He added that, over the past 20 years,people have purchased multiple lots and combined them to build bigger homes giving Orono a multitude of lot sizes. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to approve Application#02-2859,Blake and Mary Bichanich, granting lot area and lot width variances,and side yard setbacks of 20' on either side of the residence because it is a long and narrow shaped lot in order to construct a new house on the property located at 332 Westlake Street. Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to vote on this motion or table the application. Bichanich indicated that he would prefer the Commission table the application. He reiterated that he had combined two non-conforming lots in an effort to bring them more into conformity 9 years ago, whereas, what he has found is that he would have been better off keeping two 50' lots. Knowing what he does today, he questioned what the incentive for anyone would be to buy two lots for combination,thereby doubling their land cost, for a mere 25%more house. Chair Smith stated that they would table the application and encouraged the applicant to redesign the home and garage to meet a minimum 15' side yard setback on either side. Hawn withdrew her motion. Mabusth stated that as it stands, it feels as if the house was not designed to fit a long narrow lot. After further consideration,Bichanich felt that a 60' wide home could be acceptable and asked to move forward with the 20' side yard setbacks. Chair Smith stated that they could move the application forward to the Council without seeing it again if the Commission agreed. Although he would vote favorably if the applicant chose to accept 20' setbacks,Hannaford reiterated that mandating a 20' setback sounded arbitrary. PAGE 12 of 29