Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 11, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 19 of 25 <br /> <br />19. #16-3837 JOHN BRUNELLO, LLC, 570 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, <br />VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6648 <br /> <br />Levang asked what the proposed setbacks are for this application. <br /> <br />Barnhart displayed the applicant’s proposal on the overhead and noted the proposed site plan is 17 feet on <br />the north side and 15 feet from the south side lot line. Setbacks of 30 feet are required. <br /> <br />Levang asked whether there can be some compromise and have 17 feet on each side rather than 15 feet on <br />the one side. Levang stated this would be the back yard to the 1390 house and that it would give a little <br />more privacy. Levang noted the adjoining lot is for sale, which means that house could also be <br />developed at some point. <br /> <br />McMillan noted just because there is vegetation today between the two properties does not mean there <br />will be vegetation there ten years from now. McMillan indicated she is very concerned about using <br />something that is nonpermanent as a reason to allow a setback variance. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated he included that as a separate item and that when the Council grants a variance, they must <br />use caution. Barnhart noted the resolution contains other reasons for granting it, and if the Council is <br />concerned about the screening, they can state that for the resolution. <br /> <br />McMillan stated they cannot guarantee there will be a buffer there and that it should not be up to the other <br />property owner to plant a buffer. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted Page 3, Item 3a states “The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a <br />reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to <br />permit construction of portions of the proposed home within the 30-foot side setback area appears to be <br />reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and <br />topography separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors.” <br /> <br />Levang stated that goes to the issue with the back yard. <br /> <br />John Brunello, Applicant, stated the main reason why the buffer zone works for the house next door is the <br />area to the north of the existing house is a very deep gully. Brunello indicated he is not sure if that shows <br />up on the topographical map. Once that lot sells, the owner will not be able to build in that area since it is <br />very low there and it acts as a runoff area with a culvert in that area. Brunello stated it is very unlikely <br />they will build that far to the north. <br /> <br />Brunello stated when the house for this lot was designed, they ran into the situation where they were <br />trying to squeeze a lot into the plan and that the two feet makes a lot of difference in the house. Brunello <br />noted only a screened-in porch is in that area and not the main portion of the house. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he can see both sides of the argument but that they could move the sunroom forward and go <br />the other direction with it. Walsh noted it would not be necessary to move the whole house. <br /> <br />Brunello stated it will require a redesign and will delay permitting. Brunello stated they have already <br />worked with the plan a lot to get it to where it is and that they would not have asked for the variance if <br />they did not think they needed it.