09/19/2011 Planning Commission Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 19,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. . McMillan stated the major issue for the Council was that it intensified the encroachment and that the intent of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view. Given the fact that the structure was being relocated,it was felt that that intensified the encroachment and the dormers were another component of that. Gaffron stated from Staff's perspective it was a surprise that the City Council felt that relocating an encroachment had that big of an impact when the sight lines to the side were not being affected. It was putting activity closer to the neighbor's house,but that is not what the average lakeshore setback regulation is about. Gaffron stated another topic of the discussion was what views of the lake a neighbor has the right to have preserved. This particular neighbor has views of the lake from two sides. In a normal situation, Staff would normally not consider the side window views of a neighboring property in establishing whether or not an average lakeshore setback variance is appropriate. This was an unique situation,especially to have a neighbor that was very vocally opposed to the project. It also raises the question as to whether or not everybody was viewing it as though they are changing the nature of the encroachment past the average setback. Schoenzeit stated where the house is located and where the proposed improvements are does not change the sight line. The fact that the neighbor will see the water skier at exactly the same time with the improvements as he did before the improvements does not impact the average lakeshore setback. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view and the view did not change technically. McMillan stated they can rebuild the house exactly as it currently exists but that the applicant was asking to shift a nonconforming encroachment. The applicant was not proposing to construct the structure in exactly the same spot but they are relocating it to a place where it would have a greater impact on the neighbor. McMillan stated in her view this gives the Planning Commission and City Council the right to look at whether it will create a greater impact. McMillan noted there was a property on Crystal Bay Road that had proposed a screen porch in place of an existing deck and the Council had a number of issues with that blocking the view. Gaffron stated that was an instance where the neighbor's view was looking out over the deck and the applicant was proposing a screen porch to be located in the same location as the deck,which would have impacted the view. Thiesse stated the neighbor's view was not being cut off in this situation. McMillan stated if you add in an umbrella and the other items that are typically placed on a deck, it would have impacted the view. Curtis stated the neighbor could not see through the house where the deck was going. McMillan noted that vegetation is not permanent and the idea of putting vegetative screening in to mitigate something is not an end-all to everything. McMillan commented she understands that he might not see any of the new deck,but that when you look out from his dining room,it appeared that you would Page 14