Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003 <br />S. #02 -2859 Blake and Mary Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street — Variances— Continued • <br />recommended by the Planning Commission. <br />Gaffron stated that the City has become stricter in recent years concerning rebuilds. <br />Murphy suggested they reposition the great room so that it would not bump into the <br />setback. <br />Sansevere asked Gaffron if he was opposed to the 20' setback and in favor of 30'. <br />Gaffron stated that no variance was acceptable without a hardship. Chaput stated that the <br />Planning Commission decided the length and shape of the lot served as a hardship. <br />Gaffron stated that variances had been made in the 2 -acre zone, but for shorter lots. He <br />stated this application was based on aesthetic issues. <br />Sansevere stated he would not vote for the variance without a hardship. <br />Nygard stated that maintaining the feel of the neighborhood is important and in this <br />situation, they would double the distance between houses. <br />Murphy asked if the planned house wouldn't be an anomaly in the neighborhood. <br />Bichanich stated it would not, but that meeting the setbacks would create an anomaly by • <br />forcing them to mass the house vertically. He stated a house that is 30' wide and 60' long <br />would not fit the neighborhood. Bichanich stated it is too expensive to combine lots to <br />only gain 10' of house. <br />Allers stated that the code was the hardship for the application. The code was being <br />applied to a neighborhood where it didn't fit. Trying to spread the house out and reduce <br />massing was important to him. The floor plan would change drastically to accommodate <br />the larger setbacks. He stated that his purchase of the property was contingent upon the <br />setback variance. <br />Sansevere stated that he would like to say yes because it's a great house and they seem <br />nice, but he can't fairly do so without a hardship to consider. <br />Sansevere asked if they had ever granted setback variances in the 2 -acre zone. Gaffron <br />stated that staff had not found any. If a variance were granted on a questionable hardship <br />it would open the door to all sorts of claims. <br />White asked if the applicant could build on the existing foundation without any variance. <br />Gaffron stated that there is no language in the code requiring that applicants use a certain <br />percentage of the existing house, but the Planning Commission had been considering the <br />issue. <br />• <br />0 <br />