Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #05*3077 <br />5 January 2005 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Rear Yard & Side Yard Setback Variances <br />The applicunis have constructed tire lean-to approximately 45’ from the west side lot line <br />and 17" from the rear lot line. A 75’ setback is required from all lot lines for all <br />structures meant to house or shelter animals. Additionally, a 150’ setback is required for <br />all stable and/or barn structures from adjacent homes. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Fomi attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />/« coHsiderhtg applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property hi <br />the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that .such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning ('ode. <br />Staff finds that based on the size of this property there is no hardship for a setback <br />variance. The 75’ property line setback is required for all stable and/or bam structures. <br />The purpose for this provision is to further buffer neighboring properties from the <br />increase in animal activity associated with a stable. A stable also means there is a <br />potential for a greater concentration of animal waste in one area as opposed to an open <br />pasture, or paddock. <br />The applicants stated that due to the arrangement of the paddocks, and bam there is no <br />other viable location for the lean-to. Staff feels that the applicants ’ justification for a <br />variance is a situation created by them and docs not constitute a hardship inherent to the <br />property os there are 8.4 acres available with which to relocate the lean-to. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />Are there any other issues or concerns witli this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the aner-the-fact variances as requested. Further <br />staff recommends that the partially constructed Ican-to be immediately removed (weather <br />pennitting).