09-27-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 27, 2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( *7. #04 -3051 KEVIN AND JULIE FITZPATRICK, 356 WESTLAKE STREET, Continued) Gaffron repeated that the Eastlake Street lots do not set a precedent. While not many lakeshore lots in the 2 -acre zone have been granted approval based on lot width as their hardship, Gaffron pointed out that numerous off lakeshore lots have been granted similar approvals. In terms of setback, Gaffron stated that the proposed home is more conforming than the existing home and without the variance the hardship is that the lot is not buildable. Based on staff's recommendation and past precedent, White stated that he felt the City could not deny this application. While he was respectful of the current neighbors' requests and wishes, Sansevere stated that he was comfortable with the hardship of width if the City Attorney felt it to be appropriate. He asked how to handle the out building. Gaffron stated that the Council would need to assign a covenant to the property if it wished to never allow additional out buildings on the property. Gundlach stated that by incorporating the detached garage into the proposed garage, it would put the applicant over on hardcover in their 0 -75'. Attorney Barrett stated that the hardship of lot size would only be defensible in certain cases where 50' lots with existing homes on them would otherwise be unbuildable. Moorse explained that this would not have a broad impact on many homes in Orono, since there • are few very narrow lots in zones that require a wider lot, and setbacks that cross over one another, thus, making the homesite unbuildable. Since the application was under 15% structural cover, met the hardcover requirements, the out building was in conformance, and the lot area, width, and setback variances could be supported by hardship, McMillan stated that, as a Council member, she had to support the application. She was of the opinion that the out building be reduced in size. Fitzpatrick asked whether there was precedent to require an applicant to reduce the size of a conforming structure in order to gain approval. Sansevere stated that, as he was one of the remaining undecided Council members and could sway the vote, he suggested the applicant take what he could get by reducing the size of the out building or incorporating more square footage into the proposed attached garage. He stated that the Council can put conditions on an applicant's approval. Fitzpatrick stated that he would be willing to accept a somewhat smaller out building, as opposed to more mass on the proposed home and garage. White suggested the out building be reduced from the proposed 24'X16' to 12'X14' with the reduction coming from the side closest the street. 0 PAGE 10 of 13