Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 18,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicant could say the practical difficulty is that he cannot meet the average <br /> lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit stated the applicant could push the house back a little to stay behind the <br /> 75-foot line. <br /> Curtis noted the applicants are asking for a 10-foot rear setback variance rather than a 20-foot setback and <br /> that Staff is looking for direction on whether that would be acceptable. Curtis noted the average <br /> lakeshore setback line makes the lot unbuildable without a variance. If the Planning Commission is not <br /> supportive of granting the average lakeshore setback variance, Staff is asking for findings supporting the <br /> denial. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the City now allows 2,000 square feet rather than 1,500 square feet. Schoenzeit stated if <br /> the owner puts the house behind the 75-foot line and does not own the 125-foot line, it would be a more <br /> compelling discussion. Schoenzeit stated he is against going in front of the 75-foot setback. <br /> Curtis asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of variances to the rear setback and the average <br /> lakeshore setback. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the up to 2,000 square feet provides an argument for the rear setback since <br /> the applicant is only proposing 1,400 square feet. <br /> Thiesse stated simply because the code allows something does not mean someone can do it. <br /> Lemke asked if the size of the lot is acceptable. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the size of the lot is not adequate but that it is a practical difficulty. <br /> Lemke noted it is in a one-acre zone. <br /> Schoenzeit noted there are lots in the one-acre zone that are one-third of an acre all over the City. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicant may rather bring something a little more compliant back, but that given <br /> the proposed 1,400 square foot footprint,there has to be some allowance because the building does not fit <br /> given the size of the lot. Schoenzeit stated it sounds like, given some of the City's code changes and a <br /> slightly altered design, with the right set of arguments,the house could be made to fit. Schoenzeit <br /> commented enough things have changed in the code since the last time to make the best argument for <br /> development of this lot. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the fact that it has not been paying taxes on a buildable lot does not matter. Schoenzeit <br /> noted if the applicants were tearing a house down, it would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated in his view the <br /> applicant needs to work on his variance logic but that there is an argument to be made. <br /> Lemke commented he does not see any compelling argument for the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Thiesse noted it cannot be met, which is the argument. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the average lakeshore setback is a hardship. Schoenzeit stated the Applicant <br /> could probably table his application and fix the 75-foot setback and bring it back. <br /> Page 10 of 21 <br />