Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE • <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,August 12,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (10. #13-3614 FRED JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF PATRICIA L. PFEFFER, 1565 ORCHARD <br /> BEACH PLACE— VARIANCES, Continued) <br /> As it relates to the character of the neighborhood, Larson indicated he has looked at the tax records for the <br /> neighboring houses. Both neighbors on the same side of the street have foundations that are equal in size <br /> to the house being proposed. Larson stated what is out of character in the neighborhood is the 9,353 <br /> square foot mega mansion across the street. The house being proposed for this lot will fit in the living <br /> room of that house. In addition,the t�es on the mansion were $35,000, which is not in keeping with the <br /> character of the neighborhood. Larson stated the argument that this house is out of character will not fly. <br /> Larson stated as it concerns the line of sight,the neighbor's house next door is 20 feet higher than this <br /> one. The foundations will have a difference of 17 feet. Larson indicated they are not tied into this plan <br /> and that changes can be made if necessary. <br /> Larson stated the bottom line is the plat was laid out for little lots and how it was revised is not known. <br /> The building plan demonstrates that a house called a park model can fit on this lot. Larson noted another <br /> error in the 1978 resolution is the language saying that a house cannot be placed on the lot. Larson <br /> indicated he can deliver a brand-new house for$22,000,hook it up to the sewer stub, and fit it on the lot. <br /> Larson indicated that would then allow them to have a dock since it will have a primary structure. <br /> Larson stated the ordinance says that the neighbor has to sign off on the project. Larson indicated he has <br /> been a builder for a number of years and not one time did the neighbor want a new house going next to <br /> theirs. Larson questioned why that language has to be in the ordinance. . <br /> Curtis noted that requirement is for administrative approval of an average setback variance. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant requires a variance because the neighbor would not sign off on it. <br /> Larson stated this property is not a place for the neighbors to dump their leaves and debris and that it is a <br /> platted lot of record similar to the lots on Maple Place. Larson stated if this application is denied, he will <br /> come back in February with a plan that only requests a line of sight variance. Larson as it relates to the <br /> view,the house will be located lower than the neighboring homes and the fact that the previous house on <br /> this site burned down and the owners went for 65 years without building it is not a reason to deny this <br /> application since it is a platted lot of record. <br /> As it relates to the trees, Larson indicated they will only need to cut three trees down and that they will <br /> not be clear cutting the lot. Larson commented that the woman who owned the land in 1965 begged the <br /> City not to do what they did to her property. There is a practical difficulty associated with this property <br /> and it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Larson reiterated the City could vacate a <br /> portion of the land next to the boulevard to allow them to get to 10,000 square feet. <br /> Larson stated in closing he would like to say that he is interested in protecting the equity that the owner <br /> has in the land. The City's zoning law clearly states that the Council should not be denying this if it is <br /> going to result in exceptional hardship. Larson encouraged the City Council to correct a huge injustice <br /> that was done 30 years ago by previously denying the variances. <br /> Printup commented he likes the idea of a little house since he also lives in a little house but that he would <br /> be willing to make a motion denying the application. <br /> Page 26 of 37 <br />