09/15/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 15, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2938 SANDRA S. LARSON, Continued) Foth asked the Planning Commission to consider these questions as they form their recommendation: 1. Does the nature of the alley's use primarily as a driveway serving only the applicants' residence support granting of a variance from the requirement of meeting a rear yard setback? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that a hardship exists to justify making a currently conforming side setback non-conforming? Chair Smith asked why the applicants wished to pursue the side yard setback variance when there was an suitable conforming location that exists elsewhere on the property. Perry stated that her parents wish to enclose the walkway that already exists next to the home in order to construct facilities on the main floor where there are none. She indicated that if the addition were to be placed west of the home the applicants would need to remove five large old pine trees on the property and a bank of windows. They felt this to be an environmentally friendly alternative and one that was more in character with the homes style. While sensitive to the loss of trees, Chair Smith stated that trees cannot constitute the only hardship. Hawn stated that she did not, for one, have much problem with the proposal. She indicated that upon visiting the property, she found the design to be consistent and in character with the neighborhood. She believed the cottage style of the home would be lost if the applicants were forced to put the addition on the other side. Bremer concurred, stating that the she felt the character of the neighborhood and the large pine trees were worth preserving. Mabusth agreed, stating that the neighborhood has nice size lots and separations, and that she had no problem with the proposal. Fritzler disagreed, indicating that the trees should not be an issue and that by allowing them to expand the footprint in a nonconforming location, new owners might push the envelope at a later date. He stated that he was on the `fence', cautious with regard to the hardship question and worried the home might `spread'. Chair Smith agreed that she would not wish to set a precedent by allowing this proposal. Rahn too, was on the `fence', although he acknowledged that the home lined up nicely with the others in the neighborhood and added to the character of the street; whereas, the alternate location would protrude dramatically. PAGE 10 of 25