Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The draft ordinance allows for a nonconforming lot to use 10 percent of their lot width as the setback to a <br /> minimum of eight feet but it could be whatever number the Planning Commission feels appropriate. Of <br /> the 32 nonconforming setbacks, four had setbacks between eight and ten feet. Staff does not recommend <br /> establishing a minimum setback less than seven feet since construction of homes from setback to setback <br /> is an expected consequence. <br /> The proposed minimum will not eliminate variances since some existing homes are less than the <br /> minimum called for in the ordinance. Barnhart stated the challenge is to provide the City with a little <br /> more flexibility with a minimum level of open space preservation. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss whether a minimum side setback of eight feet in the LR-1B and <br /> LR-1C districts is appropriate given open space and massing control goals and whether the proposed <br /> ordinance adequately addresses the goals of the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> Barnhart stated relative to the side street setback issue, Staff encounters situations where the side street is <br /> unimproved but still requires a large setback. This often results in the vacation of that segment of the <br /> right-of-way. Staff proposes language that prescribes an alternative setback if the right-of-way is <br /> unimproved to be consistent with the interior side yard setback applicable for that lot. <br /> Thiesse asked if the actuals were existing nonconformities originally or whether they were approved <br /> through the years. <br /> Barnhart indicated he does not know why they built where they did but that some lots are situations where <br /> they were nonconforming, the property owner removed the home, and then met the setbacks a little more <br /> than what they had originally. <br /> Landgraver asked how many of those lots obtained variances. <br /> Barnhart indicated he did not compile that information. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 11:58 p.m. <br /> Amy Nelson, 1180 Arbor Street, stated her lot is actually a conforming lot at 3.4 acres but that it is <br /> located in a small lot neighborhood. Nelson stated she is here tonight as a point of clarification as to how <br /> this amendment would affect her parcel. Nelson stated what she is hearing is the inequity that is <br /> screaming to her. Nelson indicated her neighbor will be able to build within ten feet of the property line <br /> but she will never be able to subdivide or build a house that close to the property line even though her <br /> property is the only conforming parcel in the neighborhood. <br /> Nelson stated in her view this is called spot zoning and everything that she has read says that spot zoning <br /> is not very good due to the inequity. Basically the City is granting something to one homeowner by <br /> creating and allowing a use that is not allowed by surrounding properties in the area. <br /> Nelson commented it is quite ironic that the City is going to take the property that conforms and limit its <br /> potential value and is instead taking every nonconforming property and allowing them to basically <br /> rezone. Nelson stated it is rezoning even though the City is still calling it the same since they are making <br /> it different from any other area in the City. <br /> Page 45 of 48 <br />