07-08-1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 ( 96 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) • Gaffron said the Planning Commission reviewed the 1991 findings for an after - the -fact driveway installed by a previous owner. The 1991 Commission found the entire driveway to be necessary to maintain a safe level of access and would not allow any trade off of driveway. A condition of that approval was that there would be no further encroachment of structure in the lakeshore yard to include any deck. Gaffron said by code the definition of "lakeshore yard" means the 0 -75' zone. No clarification was included in the resolution. Gaffron reported that the current owner also replaced an existing stairway to the lake with a non - conforming 6'x13' platform where only 4' width is allowed. The Planning Commission questioned whether adequate hardship was shown and recommended the stairway system be brought into conformity. Kelley asked if a building permit was taken out for the deck. Gaffron replied to the negative. Kelley noted it was curious that the deck conforms to the 75' setback line. Attorney Mitchell said the applicant was of the opinion that he could replace the lakeshore stairway board by board and is willing to reduce it to 4' if requested. Mitchell said the numbers regarding the hardcover were correct. He noted the hardship pertained to the slanting lakeshore in relation to the squared off homes in the area. Mitchell noted that the older portion of the house was located in the 0 -75' zone, while the newer portions were built behind that line. Mitchell said the existing deck is small and under the • overhang resulting in no area in which to use the lakeshore yard. Mitchell also noted that the old survey did not analyze the width of the driveway, and he is of the opinion that a reduction could be made in this area. Mitchell said the turnaround area has never been enough for more than one vehicle and noted that no parking is allowed in the street. The small lots in the area and driveway conditions create a need for variances. In what Mitchell believes brings clarity to the issue, the proposal results in the property becoming less non - conforming. He noted that no additional variances were required. There were no public comments. Jabbour asked for clarification regarding the decks. Mitchell had spoken about an existing deck but the deck in question is new. Gaffron noted that there are two different decks. Kelley said he had no problem with the deck as matching hardcover is being removed in the same 75 -250' zone. Jabbour noted that a building permit was needed. 4