10-09-2017 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 9,2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 12. #17-3968 SHARRATT DESIGN AND COMPANY OB/O FREDERICK AND PATRICIA JOHNSON, 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE(PID 07-117-23-0026)—VARIANCE—Continued McDermott stated he has done a lot of research on these issues over the past few weeks and that he has spoken with real estate attorneys,the mayor,Council Member Printup,and read through hundreds of pages of ordinances and codes. McDermott stated he has a pretty good understanding of what is going on and that there is a real argument over whether this is residential property or common property and that there is good basis to vote no on this application. The definition of whether it is common property or residential property depends and that the state code says one thing,the county code says another thing, and city code says another thing. McDermott stated Mayor Walsh told him that city code supersedes state code as far as a platted lot,and that the chair of the Planning Commission pointed out to him that this lot is zoned residential for the City of Orono but not platted residential. McDermott stated if you look at the residential map,this is considered to be a low to medium density residential area that requires two to maybe three homes per acre. McDermott stated what they are proposing is a house on a .22 acre property. McDermott stated in his view the Council can just forget about the character of the neighborhood and that just because it is a small piece of land does not mean it has to be developed. If that was the case,all of the City's common space would disappear and that this lot has not been built on in 100 years. McDermott noted the intent of the City ordinances is to protect the community and the best interests of everyone as a whole. McDermott stated the builder bought it as an unbuildable lot and has stated that he is entitled to reasonable use of the property. Orono Code states that he does have reasonable use for a seasonal recreational property and that he can use the property for that specific purpose but not residential. McDermott stated it is his understanding the applicant has originally asked for 11 variances. Curtis noted the applicant is not requesting 11 variances but that he is requesting lot area,lot width, average lakeshore setback, and a rear setback variance. The applicant has removed their request for a 75-foot setback variance and a hardcover variance within the 0-75 foot zone. McDermott asked about the 144-foot setback. Curtis indicated that is the lot width requirement. McDermott asked what the average lakeshore setback to the homes in the neighborhood is. Curtis stated in this case it is the measurement from the lake to the house to the west,which is the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback is located off this lot and that they cannot meet that. McDermott stated there is a house setback,the deck setback,the stoop setback,and the sidewalk setback. Crosby asked how many total variance requests there are today. Curtis indicated there are four. Page 9 of 23