05-20-2002 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 20,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2766 WILLIAM KEEFE, Continued) lot, surrounding area,previously existing concrete pad, and vegetative screening as the hardship that allows the City to grant the variance. He also stated that he has made extensive efforts to improve his property and home, of which this is a part, and has gone the extra mile to do more than what has been required by the City. He hoped that the Commission would take this effort into consideration and encourage he, and his neighbors,to continue to take pride in, and improve,their properties. Barry Bennett, 2208 Shadywood Drive,adjacent property owner, stood up in support of the Keefe's effort to improve the previously existing shed,which was in total disrepair. Mr. Bennett stated that the old shed was hardly functional at best and an eyesore to he and others, so he had volunteered to assist the Keefe's in repairing, and ultimately rebuilding,the structure. He maintained that he had no objections with the shed, or its location. Mabusth asked Mr. Bennett if he had a nonconforming shed on his property. Mr. Bennett replied he did not because his home is a walkout to the lake, thus he does not have the same need for a shed as the Keefe's do. He continued that he would be willing to assist others in the repair of their sheds as well. Mr. Keefe stated that it is difficult to know what situations require permits etc. He questioned how an individual owner should know what the appropriate channels are, and what freedoms they have to maintain or repair their own properties. Hawn noted that in every building project,no matter how minor,the City should be consulted first. Smith stated that the City wants to eliminate all of the old sheds in Orono within 75 feet of shore once they've outlived their useful life. Kluth pointed out that by not allowing property owners to upkeep their property,isn't the City creating an incentive for people NOT to maintain their property, old sheds, or whatever. Rahn maintained therein lies the dilemma,the City does not want to encourage people to rebuild nonconforming structures. Because they run into this issue so often,he suggested the possibility of revisiting the size of the lock box,perhaps it is too small, and allowing larger than a 20 s.f. structure may be necessary. This might encourage lakeshore owners to rid themselves of these old sheds in lieu of the newer bigger lock box. Having said this, Rahn stated that he could not support rebuilding a nonconforming structure, however,he could see setting the wheels in motion to consider a new standard size lock box. Kluth maintained that no criteria exists to judge the useful life of a structure. Hawn asked staff to add the discussion over lock box size to a future work session. PAGE 3