09-26-2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 28 (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. Franchot asked where he is taking the sight line from on his house. Jones stated the sight line depends on where you are standing and that he is talking about anywhere on his lot. Jones stated if he builds another house on the property, the setback line is back further and he would be required to construct it further back. Franchot indicated he was attempting to figure out where the sight line is that Mr. Jones was speaking of. Jones stated he is allowed to be anywhere on his lot and not have his view impacted. Jones indicated he has not discussed screening with the applicant. The current vegetation is approximately ten years old and is half dead. McMillan asked as it relates to the nonstructural hardcover, whether property owners are allowed to trade that for structural coverage. Curtis indicated Staff does not have the ability to trade when the hardcover exceeds the regulations and was approved by a variance. McMillan asked whether the City has been pretty strict in enforcing hardcover regulations. Gaffron stated there have been dozens of variances granted over the years to address a situation that is not in compliance with City Code. Franchot stated part of Mr. Jones' claim is that a portion of what is being removed was approved by a variance and part of it apparently wasn’t. Curtis indicated the deck that exists today is the deck that is reflected on the survey and was approved by a variance. Franchot asked if the City considers the entire deck to have been approved. Curtis stated that City records indicate it was approved by a variance. Rahn stated the new structure is not an issue since the property owner is under the 15 percent structural coverage limit. If the current deck is considered nonconforming, then that would be an issue since nonconforming hardcover cannot be relocated or expanded. Franchot asked if there was a variance granted, if it does not become conforming. Mattick stated basically structural versus nonstructural hardcover functions the same from a hardcover perspective but that the regulations generally do not make sense to someone when they come in and remove a different piece of hardcover in exchange for constructing new hardcover which results in no net gain. Council has given Staff the ability to administratively approve the type of application where there is no net increase in the hardcover when the lot is conforming. In this particular case, not every aspect of Item #03 - CC Agenda - 09/26/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 09/12/2011 [Page 16 of 28]