Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 22, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />07) #02 -2791 DA YE AND JODI RAHN,1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - <br />Continued <br />With this in mind, Rahn stated that, frankly, the strong language used in his approvals surprised <br />him as well in comparison. <br />If anyone should have been allowed more hardcover or structural coverage, Rahn maintained that <br />it should have been his lot. As stated in the ordinance, hardcover limits are set to stop the rapid <br />runoff of water, his lot has the required low -lying area to catch the runoff properly. He believed <br />that the home next door and his, truly, should have been flip flopped with regard to what should <br />have been allowed. Rahn continued that the homes next door and across the street tower above <br />his in mass by 20'. He could not understand why he had been allowed a mere 1000 s.f footprint, <br />while all of the homes around him had been allowed to tower above his. He stated that what he <br />was hearing from the Council was that he would not be allowed the structural coverage that <br />everyone has and more. Rahn reiterated that he would like to be allowed the same rights as his <br />neighbors. He stated that because he has nothing else to remove from his property, no excessive <br />hardcover, porches or patios, the City is now asking him to remove structural coverage. <br />Murphy stated that he did not feel he was asking the applicant to change the existing shed, but <br />now that he's been told that they plan to use it as a garage, he questions the applicant's <br />intentions. <br />Rahn stated that the shed would be used in that regard. His intention is to keep the shed for <br />storage, storage of snowmobiles, boats, whatever is necessary. Now the City is telling him that <br />he cannot store his property there or drive on his lawn. He indicated that he pulls on the lawn to <br />wash his car and that is not considered a driveway. <br />Sansevere asked if there were any change in staffs position after hearing Rahn's statement. <br />Weinberger stated that there was not necessarily any change in staff s position, and maintained <br />that when some of the previous approvals were done and these homes were allowed to go up a <br />certain percentage, they often had to remove hardcover to do so. Mr. Rahn seems to be requesting <br />to be allowed 15% lot coverage and whatever hardcover is necessary to support it. Weinberger <br />noted that the neighboring lot the applicant referred to had included the combination of two lots <br />and removed driveways etc.; he agreed the current home does exceed 15% and hardcover limits. <br />Weinberger asked if Council's position is going to be that everyone is allowed up to 15% of their <br />lot area to be structure, regardless of the hardcover impacts. <br />Sansevere asked if the neighbor would have more hardcover than he does if the shed remains. <br />Rahn stated that the neighbor is at 23.5% and he is at 22.6 %. Rahn maintained that his lot is • <br />larger than the neighbors, but yet the neighbor has been allowed more than he has. Rahn <br />reiterated that for a long period of time this lot was viewed as a 10,000 s.f lot, due to the <br />PAGE 12 of 35 <br />