Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is not bothering anybody's average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit noted the footings <br /> have not been inspected, and if they knew the footings have to be replaced, it should not be allowed to go <br /> back in. If the footings are not in concrete or rebar and they have to replace them,then it becomes a <br /> problem. Schoenzeit noted they have not heard from the building inspector on whether the members are <br /> the right size, and that if it needs disassembly to meet code,he is not comfortable with the location. <br /> Thiesse stated if it meets all the requirements of the building official, it could be approved if the Planning <br /> Commission finds the location acceptable. <br /> Curtis stated structurally the building can be shored up to make it work and that the Planning Commission <br /> should not base their approval on whether it is structurally sound. Curtis stated if it is approved in this <br /> location,the building inspector has indicated they can make it work structurally. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if it has to be torn down to meet code, it should be considered a clean sheet,and that a <br /> practical difficulty could be the fact that it already exists. <br /> Curtis stated they need to look at it as though it is not there and that the practical difficulty cannot be that <br /> it is already built. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if it is not there,it would not be allowed to cross the yellow line. <br /> Barnhart pointed out the property owners cannot create the practical difficulty. <br /> Curtis stated according to the building inspector,the structure can be shortened to meet the 75-foot <br /> setback. <br /> Thiesse stated he cannot vote for a motion requiring someone to cut four feet off of their porch and that <br /> they can make the porch structurally sound if it is lacking something. Thiesse commented it is the cove <br /> that is manmade that has created a practical difficulty. <br /> Landgraver stated he is disappointed that something was built and that they are now dealing with it after <br /> the fact. Landgraver indicated he would be willing to grant a variance to the 75-foot variance since it is <br /> already built but that he has an issue with the average lakeshore setback. Landgraver stated he is not sure <br /> the Planning Commission would have approved it that far past the average lakeshore setback line. <br /> Thiesse stated he tends to lean toward approval since the neighbors are in favor of it and that in his view <br /> the average lakeshore setback is something that can be manipulated depending on the circumstances. <br /> Thiesse noted the neighbor to the north is already 65 feet from the cove and that he cannot go any closer. <br /> Lemke commented he sees it both ways and that the Planning Commission likely would have approved <br /> the average lakeshore setback because it seems to be a reasonable addition to the house. <br /> Thiesse asked if the practical difficulty could be that this was created by his contractor. <br /> Curtis indicated the applicant is the person responsible for his property. <br /> Landgraver asked if there are any configurations that would have stayed within the average lakeshore <br /> setback. <br /> Page 4 of 21 <br />