05-21-2001 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) and 140 foot width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still exist today according to Staff's report. Discussion was also held on the matter of"single separate ownership", and it was indicated had the property been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property having the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership,which was the case with the neighboring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Roesler does not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted approval of the variances previously. Waldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two properties and that this application should be approved as well. Smith inquired whether the Applicant is considering those two lots the same for comparison purposes. Waldron stated that is correct. Waldron indicated the lot that was granted variances is actually slightly smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg stated at the time the approval was granted,the lot was 50 feet by 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure was permitted to be built on this property,the neighborhood uniformity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside from the fact that this application does not differ from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot, Waldron indicated the property owner is being deprived of all practical use of that property. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even able to place a dock on that property. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakeshore lot. Roesler stated at the time she purchased the property, she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had been declared unbuildable. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's intentions were to construct a house on the lake lot. Roesler stated that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at the time, and inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application. Gaffron stated that application was approved approximately 28 or 29 years ago and the records in the City's possession at this time give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron stated City Staff could do an analysis of similar sized lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation would be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. Gaffron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12