08-09-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #I0 -3477 JOHNROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White noted the variance is to add additional hardcover. White asked the applicant whether he could remove a portion of the driveway to offset the hardcover he would like to add. Curtis stated if he can do that and maintain the functionality of the driveway, Staff would not be opposed to that as long as it still meets the City's minimum driveway standards. Curtis pointed out it was not a requirement of the City to heat the entire driveway but only a portion of it. Roedel stated with a heated driveway that is an incline, you can no longer have heavy trucks come in and that you have to hand shovel. Roedel stated he could have done just the incline but that he does not want to hand shovel the rest of the driveway. Franchot stated the question is what the City Council can do to remedy this. Bremer noted the City has turned away a number of people in similar situations who applied in advance of the Supreme Court ruling but Council denied their applications. Bremer commented there is a movement to change the law and that the ruling is probably not going to be a permanent thing. Bremer stated in her view this request makes sense and that three months ago this application would have been on the consent agenda. Bremer stated she is not sure how the City Council can say yes to this • applicant but no to others since a majority of the applicants say that their project will improve their property. Mattick stated the timing of this application does not have any bearing on the Supreme Court's ruling since the language did not address pending applications. Secondly, the prior owner used that approved hardcover area to construct a portion of the kitchen rather than the patio area. The question before the City Council now is if the original applicant were standing before them right now, would the applicant be approved for an additional 187 feet, and it is likely the City Council would not allow it given their hardcover restrictions. Mattick stated the applicant could comply with the original terms of the variance and if the kitchen were downsized, the patio would be allowed. If other hardcover is removed elsewhere on the property, depending on how the resolution was written, it is possible that they could allow the new hardcover. Mattick stated he has not watched the video of the Supreme Court hearing but that he has spoken with the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the City and that it is not a case of whether the neighbors agree with it or not. The neighbors do have some level of input but that neighborhood support does not guarantee approval of the variance. The Supreme Court has said with this recent ruling that when a city establishes provisions that govern zoning and there is a variance request, absent a showing that you have no reasonable use of your property, you cannot be granted a variance. If the City simply grants the variance, they would be ignoring the law. Mattick recommended the City wait to see what the legislature will do to fix the problem. Mattick indicated the question is whether the homeowner has reasonable use of his property without the 187 square feet of property. Roedel stated he purchased a home with three patio doors that had been approved by the City and that a logical assumption would be that he would be allowed a patio. On June 22"d, no one was aware of the Supreme Court decision and that it is a hardship for him not to have a patio. Page 13 of 17