Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANN7NG COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 21,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MiTNSON CONTINUED) <br /> Sjoholm pointed out the applicant could locate the house further back on the property and build a three- <br /> story structure,but that the applicant is attempting to maintain the structure in its present location due to <br /> the fact that the further back the residence is located,the more tunnel effect that is experienced. Sjoholm <br /> stated the elevation of the Wagener house is much higher than the location of the proposed construction. <br /> Sjoholm stated he seriously questions whether you can see the property from the Wagener residence. <br /> Nelson indicated where the pole was erected on the model. <br /> Kempf inquired whether the parapet is 27 feet high at that point. <br /> Nelson indicated it is. <br /> Sjoholm stated to deny the variance would be to deny Mr.Munson the reasonable and appropriate use of <br /> his property. Sjoholm indicated the proposed location of the residence is in keeping with the rest of the <br /> neighborhood and that this residence is located the furthest back from the lakeshore. Sjoholm indicated <br /> the applicant has recently purchased the property and would like to construct a residence that takes <br /> advantage of the current location. <br /> Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. <br /> Peter Johnson,Attorney-at-Law, stated he began working with Mr.Wagener on this property back in June <br /> of 2005 and that they have been trying to be good neighbors. Johnson stated they do not want to see the <br /> encroachment intensified from what currently exists. Johnson stated the applicant was invited to see what <br /> he could do to reduce the encroachment and that as of last week Wednesday they had not heard from the <br /> applicant. <br /> Johnson indicated they finally received a call on Wednesday from the applicant's attorney. Johnson <br /> stated he inquired at that point whether there would be any changes to the plan to lessen the <br /> encroachment. Johnson indicated the applicant's attorney informed him that he did not lrnow whether <br /> there would be any changes. Johnson stated they would have preferred that their concerns were addressed <br /> and that they were unable to arrange a site visit. <br /> Johnson stated the average setback creates an expectation for every property owner that they can preserve <br /> some views of the lake. Johnson indicated the Wagener property currently has beautiful views of the lake <br /> and that the Wageners would like to preserve those views. Johnson noted the Wageners have resided on <br /> this property for the past 25 years and intend to reside in the dwelling as they grow old. <br /> Johnson stated their concern goes beyond their view from the living room and that he is stunned to find <br /> out that they have reduced the height down to 27 feet because he knows his clients would have been . <br /> happy to hear about that and that it should have been the subject of some discussion. <br /> Johnson stated the idea that a hardship exists on this site with this type of house is a bizarre twisting of the <br /> way the ordinance is intended to be applied. Johnson indicated the applicant could construct a spectacular <br /> house with incredible views of the lake without the variance. Johnson commented any hardship that <br /> might exist has been self-created by the previous owner. Johnson stated to request a variance now <br /> because they do not like the low-swung house or inadequate views of the lake is not appropriate since it <br /> was pre-existing and was a self-created hardship. <br /> PAGE 4 <br />