08-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 30 the application. In addition, the application does not present all the variances that are required. If the toe is put at 942, this would be considered bluff land and require a variance since the City’s ordinance states there shall be no structures in the bluff land. Thieroff stated the response he received back was that Staff does not agree the toe is at 942 feet. Thieroff stated the second additional variance not applied for is a variance to the structural coverage limit. The applicant’s calculation was at 14.9 percent and Staff agreed with that calculation. Thieroff stated as he reads the ordinance, the applicants would need to include the patio but did not. The ordinance says patios are included if they are partially enclosed by a wall. Thieroff stated the patio is right up against the house and that he would construe that as partially enclosed, which bumps it over the 15 percent. Thieroff stated in addition, this is a tiny lot that is substandard by a significant degree. The lot is located in a one-acre zoning district but it only consists of a quarter acre. Thieroff stated he heard reference to the state statute earlier this evening and that he would like to point out the statute was amended to give the City discretion to allow someone to build on a lot less than one acre but does not require it. Thieroff stated since the time the state statute has been amended, the City has not amended its ordinance to allow that and the applicants would need a variance for that as well. Thieroff stated in regard to the ordinance requirements for granting a variance, he would like to highlight two points. The state statute and the ordinance state that you cannot grant any variance that is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan or with the Community Management Plan. Guiding Principal No. 5 states that views shall be preserved. Thieroff stated this development, if allowed, would not preserve but would obstruct the view his clients have enjoyed for a number of years. Thieroff stated the plight of a landowner should be due to unique circumstances and not circumstances that they have created themselves. The applicants have purchased a piece of property with a house and another piece of property with a dock on it. The Special Lot Combination Agreement says they could never construct on that property unless it was subdivided and the City Council has denied the proposed subdivision. Thieroff noted there have been no changes in the law or circumstances that would require a different outcome and that there are no unique circumstances other than the desires of the landowner. Thieroff noted the design of the house is also a circumstance of the property owner’s own making. Schoenzeit noted the applicants’ attorney said he thought the Special Lot Combination Agreement may be illegal, which brings up the point that if the average lakeshore setback moves to the front piece of the property, one of the major issues would go away. Schoenzeit asked what his thinking is in regards to that. Thieroff asked if he is saying that these two lots are separated Schoenzeit stated if you assume that the two lots cannot be combined and if the Special Lot Combination Agreement went away and if the average lakeshore setback moved to the theoretical location of No. 6 or goes away completely, what his thoughts are regarding those circumstances. Thieroff stated he does not remember what is north of Lot 6. Gaffron indicated there is a house there. Thieroff stated it is an extremely hypothetical question because it is not the case that the pending lawsuit against the City is challenging these Special Lot Combination Agreements across the board. Thieroff Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 17 of 30]