10-13-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13, 1997 ( #9 - 42295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten asked what the hardship would be. Kelley indicated the property itself was the hardship. Jabbour asked if the structure is an accessory structure or a garage. Brooks said it was a storage structure. Jabbour indicated that the storage needs with children would not be provided by a lock box but does not see the hardship required for an additional garage. He questioned whether a 10'x10' structure would be adequate while minimizing the impact. Brooks indicated that at some point of decreasing the structure size, it becomes unusable. He said he is willing to reduce the original 24'x24' size to 24'x18' to accommodate the concerns. He noted the front to front dimension was most sensitive and suggested a change to the side dimension while maintaining some sense of proportion. Flint was informed that the structure was not "grandfathered" in due to it being new construction. Brooks indicated that a small size would result in storing items outside during the winter and feels the size is fair considering the number of people residing in the residence and its size. Jabbour said he understood Brooks rationale but felt more land was required for that to occur. Peterson said she did not disagree with the accessory structure itself but with the setbacks and distance from the roadway. She sees a hardship with the distance between the house and the road. Jabbour said the distance to travel from the lake to the house is a hardship noting the applicant has the right for a riparian use of the lake. Goetten said she felt differently regarding hardship. Jabbour reported that the lakeshore should be able to be used in a reasonable manner and requires somewhere to house such belongings. He thought a structure smaller in size than would accommodate a car should be satisfactory. Brooks said while he does have an extra car that could utilize the space, it would not be necessary. Gaffron noted there is a 50' front setback in this zone. Brooks asked if a 3 or 4' setback from the right -of -way instead of 1' could be accommodated. Jabbour noted there is a 19' envelope between the wetland separation and the roadway. 0 14