Laserfiche WebLink
«M)5-30S4 <br />February 22, 2005 <br />I'figc 3 of .) <br />Iliinlsiiip S(»(cmcnt <br />Applicanl lias provided a brief hardship statement in Fxliibit B, and should be asked lor <br />additional testimony regarding the appliealiun. <br />Hardiihip Analysis_____________________________________________________ <br />/« conxMering appUciithnx for variance, the Planning Connnixsion shall consider the effed of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />Irajflc conditions, light and air, danger of flre, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Conunission shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because ojlcircumstances unique to the l.idIvUtual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It h demonstrated that such <br />actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that there is a hardship that supports some degree of variance. The existing <br />house was constructed prior to adoption of the current zoning regulations. Al.so, past <br />setbacks were apparently measured from the centerline of the roadway because the <br />property is legally described to the centerline of the roadway. The northwest corner of <br />the hou.se meets a 100 ’ setback from the centerline of the road, but because the lot line <br />curves with the roadway the .southwest corner is shown at a 95 ’ setback. The existing <br />Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 1975 c.stablishcd the front lot line as the edge of <br />the right-of-way, which occurred much later than construction of the hou.se. <br />Now that a hard.ship has been established, it should be determined to what degree a front <br />yard setback variance should be granted. It is clear that an attached garage cannot meet <br />the 100 ’ setback beciiuse in moving that far off the front lot line it would no longer be <br />attached. In the pa.st the Planning Commission has granted variances for situations such <br />us this, however no increase in the non-eonformity is usually granted. Therefore, staff <br />finds that the upplieunt could revise the depth of the garage to 24’ so as not to become <br />closer than 77’ to the front lot line while still providing egress from the two windows off <br />the 2'"* story of the existing home by creating a notch in the roof which would not be <br />visible from the road or end view. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1 What degree of a liont yard setback variance should be granted? <br />2. .Should an increase in the existing non-eonforming setback of 77’ be permitted? <br />3. Is it reasonable to grant a variance for an attached garage when a detached garage <br />could be constructed on the site within all .setbacLs? How about a 3-car total attached <br />garage? <br />4. Are there any other i.ssues or concerns with this application? <br />SlafT Recoin niendation <br />To deny the 72' front yard setback variance request. Staff would recommend approval of <br />a front yard .setback variance of 77’ which wouldn’t inerea.se the exi.sting non-conforming <br />setback. The Planning Commission should advise the applicant to redesign the garage in <br />Older to .achieve a 77’ setback.