Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri115,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Eskuche indicated this is the same condition but just not as extreme. The proposed location of the house <br /> is 20 feet behind the 75-foot setback and is actually completely behind the neighbor's house. If you move <br /> the house any further back,you will have a pretty substantial house blocking their view of the lake. <br /> Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Builders, stated the idea behind the adjacent setback line and the spirit of <br /> � why it is part of the code is to protect everybody's view and not to force people over time to move further <br /> and further away from the lake. The setback is to protect everyone's views. In this case,being behind <br /> that line or ahead of the line does not affect the view of the home to the north. <br /> Gustafson indicated everything they are doing is improving their view. The home to the south is not <br /> impacted in any way. The whole purpose of what is being asked for is a variance to allow them to have <br /> reasonable views of the lake. Pulling this house back an arbitrary 15 feet simply puts the proposed house <br /> further behind the other house. Gustafson stated this is not a clean slate since they cannot affect the two <br /> houses to the north and the south and that they are stuck with that hardship. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it might be a long-term process,but the further a house is located away from a <br /> lake,the better the water quality can be. <br /> Gustafson stated in spirit it is but that is not the purpose for the average setback line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated over time you could improve the lake quality by moving the homes back. <br /> Gustafson noted they are asking for a variance to the average lakeshore setback and that it is not driven by <br /> water quality or hardcover. The intent of the ordinance is to protect the views of the lake, and to suggest <br /> that over time this house will go away may not necessarily be true because it could be remodeled. <br /> Gustafson stated they do not feel it is fair to say to them to just wait and that eventually that house may be <br /> relocated. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the proposed location allows the residence to the north to further encroach. <br /> Curtis noted it would pull that house back. <br /> Gustafson stated it should be at the 75-foot setback but it is not,which is the problem. The house to the <br /> north has lake views on two sides and it does not matter that he is not at 75 feet. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view the spirit of the rule is being met by pulling it back behind the 75-foot lake <br /> setback and maintaining their views as well as improving the views of the neighbor,which is the spirit of <br /> the law. � <br /> Schoenzeit commented he is not comfortable with tossing out the outlying properiy since at some point <br /> the outlying property may be rebuilt. ' <br /> Lemke stated he does not feel 15 feet would make that big of a difference. <br /> Leskinen suggested someone on the Planning Commission either make a motion to table the application <br /> or make a new motion to deny. <br /> Eskuche indicated they would prefer it be approved as submitted. <br /> Page 10 of 26 <br />