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) Mattick stated three months ago it is likely this application would have been approved on the consent agenda but that circumstances have changed since the Supreme Court ruling. Roedel stated they are talking about something that increases the value of the home and neighborhood and benefits the environment and is really not comparable to the case before the Supreme Court. Mattick stated the Orono City Council does review hardcover at significant lengths but that the City's options are limited given the ruling. Roedel stated on June 24"' the Supreme Court Ruling become public knowledge but he was not aware of it when he purchased the house. Curtis noted the applicant met with Staff prior to the purchase of the property and he was told at that time that it would be difficult to obtain a hardcover variance. The patio doors were not depicted on the plan at the time the application was approved. At the time the building permit was applied for, the patio doors were depicted on the plan and the building inspector approved additional pads for the landings, which was hardcover in addition to what was originally approved. 0 Roedel stated he was informed by the building inspector that a 3 x 3 hard surface was a requirement and that he has complied with everything that has been asked of him. • Murphy stated it is a difficult situation for the homeowners and that he does not feel comfortable talking about hardcover and what would happen if the City goes ahead and approves it. Murphy noted the City's Attorney has said that the Council cannot grant the variance. White stated the hardship as defined under the new Supreme Court ruling is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without something, which is a very high standard. The City Council unfortunately cannot ignore the law and they cannot grant a variance unless the language is changed. Bremer asked whether the joint tram was ever constructed. Roedel indicated it was not built. Roedel asked whether he could give up the easement for the tram in exchange for the patio. Curtis pointed out the tram is located in a different zone. Gaffron stated the tram is allowed within the 0 -75 foot zone. Franchot asked whether the Council could offset the proposed hardcover if he reduces the hardcover in the 0 -75 foot zone. Gaffron indicated Staff has not discussed that option as it relates to this application. Mattick noted the .tram is not included in the hardcover calculations. • Page 14 of 17