Laserfiche WebLink
Mjoi <br />April 11,2005 <br />Pagt3of3 <br />0-75 17,641 s.f.Os.f <br />(0%) <br />Os.f.* <br />(0%)NO CHANGE <br />75 - 250 37,024 s.f.9,256 s.f <br />(25%) <br />3,460 s.f.* <br />(9.3%) <br />4,932 s.f. <br />(13.3%) <br />250 - 500 33,914 s.f.10,174 s.f. <br />(30%) <br />7,677 s.f.* <br />(22.6%)NO CHANGE <br />After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />Average Lakeshore Setback Variance <br />The applicants would like to construct a pool along the southern property boundary, located <br />lakewaid of the existing house. The pool will be setback 20 ‘ from the southern property <br />boundary and well out of the 75’ lake setback, complying with the accessory structure <br />setback standards. However, the location proposed will be located in front of the required <br />average lakeshore setback line as shown by connecting the adjacent homes. This requires <br />approval of a variance. <br />Hnrdahip Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for <br />additional testimony tegarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />Ai cotukkHmt apfHe&thmsf»r imrkmc*, tk* Pluuikig CommbahH i*«// comUer the effect of the <br />ffopotei meioHce ofom tke keohk, pffMf emi weffore of ike eemmoHky, existing omd mntk^ted <br />tteffk tmUrtmu, iigkt end oir, danger of fire, risk to tke pnbtk safety, *"d the ^eet on values of <br />property ki die surrounding area. Tke Planning Commission skull consider recommending approval <br />for variances from th t lUeral provbhns of tke Zoning Code In Instances wkere their strict <br />ertforcement would cause undue hardship because ofcircunatances unique to the Individual <br />property under conMeroHon, and shall recommend approval onfy when It Is demonstrated that suck <br />acdone wU be In keeping wkk die spirit and bilent of tke Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that there is a hardship to warrant granting a variance. The average lakeshore <br />setback ordinance exists merely to protect adjacent neighbor’s lake views. Because these <br />homes are setback more than ISO’ from the lake, adjacent lake views are minimal because <br />they stretch over huge expanses of property first. Also, the most affected neighbor to the <br />south already has an obstructed view of the applicant’s lakeshore consisting of the screening <br />vegetation that exists on the shared property boundary. What views are visible through the <br />vegetation spread over some 400’-S00’ -t- before you get a view of the lake, which is it the <br />end of Stubbs Bay where the shoreline curves. This most affected property also sits higher in <br />elevation than the applicants where views expanse over the applicant’s proposed pool. <br />Innas for CoasideratkMi <br />1. Are any views negatively impacted? <br />2. Should the existing shed be required to be moved so as to meet the 10’ setback? <br />3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff RecomawndatkMi <br />Approval as submitted stipulating that the existing shed be moved to meet a 10’ setback off <br />the southern property boundary. <br />I <br />mffi ilHii