03-27-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 • MINUTES OF THE . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 27, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #05 -3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA VARIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PEI Gaffron explained that the applicants request fc conditional use permit for importation of fill in of a new residence to replace the existing resid( Planning Commission at its February 21" meet At issue, which deadlocked the Planning Comr lakeshore setback which the neighbor objected noted that the proposed fill within 5' of the nei, upon the view of the neighbor's wall was not n impact drainage problems. 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE — an average lakeshore setback variance and a Kcess of 500 cubic yards to allow for construction ce on the property received a 3 -3 vote by the ;ion, was the 22' encroachment into the average Though drainage is an ongoing issue, Gaffron or's lot line which would have visual impact .ved by the Commission and would do little to Since this is new construction and should be required to meet setback requirements, Murphy stated that whether or not the existing house meets the average lakeshore setback now is irrelevant. Admittedly an odd average lakeshore setback line, Murphy saw no hardship to warrant any encroachment into the zone, since there was more than adequate room to pull the house back altogether. With regard to the fill, Murphy stated that the lot had been filled many years ago in an effort to help with the drainage. He maintained that, if the house were pulled back out of the average lakeshore setback, they would also needless fill to resolve the drainage. Bill Sjoholm, applicant's attorney, stated that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Commission supported the request for fill, but it was the average lakeshore setback variance which had them at odds. While the applicant has made numerous attempts to make adjustments to the design in order to accommodate this almost unrealistic average lakeshore setback line, they believe there is a hardship here created by the line and the homeowner next door trying to prevent what is being proposed. He continued, explaining that, if the house were pulled back, it would create a tunnel vision effect from the new home through the trees on either side. Sansevere questioned whether the applicant t the average lakeshore setback afforded them. could be considered a hardship. that their hardship could be based on the view :re asked Brokl whether the view of the lake Brokl stated that, if the Council chose to accept iti, the views could be considered a hardship. Sjoholm pointed out that, as proposed, the of the lake. McMillan questioned whether anything had c since he had initially purchased the property. Munson stated that his lot seems to serve as a runoff. would not be obstructing the neighbors views with regard to the landscaping next door, deposit area for both he and his neighbor's McMillan pointed out that the average lakeshore setback is a principal the City does not often Is choose to deviate from without a strong hardship. She felt that, in this instance, the applicant could build easily without intruding on this setback. I PAGE'? of 14