07-22-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,. July 22, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. 07) #02 -2791 DAVE AND JODI RAR7V,1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Sansevere stated that the applicant went to an expense and a cost based on the information he was supplied with. If it had stayed a floodplain, the applicant would not even be here today. Rahn reiterated that the whole design in concept would have been different from what has been done, if the floodplain had not been there. He stated that, quite obviously, they had planned everything around the floodplain and were bound by it. Sansevere asked what the Planning Commission felt with regard to the floodplain. Smith indicated that the floodplain became an integral part of their discussion. In fact, she stated that her closing comments were that the Commission had learned quite a bit about floodplains in this application and will hopefully not have to face this difficulty again, but will have a better understanding if they do. While it didn't resolve this applicant's particular situation, she stated that it was part of their discussion. Sansevere stated that, while he might not have voted to allow the additional 20X20' garage today had he been granted the attached garage back in 1996, the fact that he built the existing garage Is based on information he was given from the City, added a gray area for his consideration. Weinberger stated that because he had limited hardcover to work with in 1998, this was another reason the garage and short driveway were built in that location to begin with. Weinberger contended had they looked at the position of the driveway today, they may have reconsidered its location due to the difficulty in maneuvering. Sansevere questioned the City Attorney if it would be out of line to use the gray area pertaining to the misinformation when considering this application, or should he put this issue completely aside and only consider the hardcover issue of keeping this garage. Legally it may have nothing to do with the fact that, because he was given bad information, the garage was put there in the first place. Barrett stated that the floodplain argument might distinguish a decision from other ones, but the question of whether the garage should be removed or not, with respect to hardcover, is one that offers a pretty strong argument, and one that has been adhered to in order to keep to hardcover limits. Legally if you do decide to do it, you could cite the floodplain error as the reason. Otherwise Barrett suggested they require the old garage be removed before the new one is built with regard to hardcover, and not structural coverage. Rahn stated that the Planning Commission only recently approved a hardcover variance across the street from him. PAGE 18 of 35