07-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4MI5-3132 July 18,2005 Page 4 of 6 28,470 s.f. 27,917 s.f. - 250 - 500 excluding 8,375 s.f.180 s.f. shared driveway area/hardcover (30%)(0.6%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on a currently vacant lot. The lot contains 66,626 s.f. or 1.5 acres of total acreage where only 40,126 s.f. or 0.92 acres is considered dry. This property lies within the LR - lA zoning district requiring 2 acres of dry buildable area, thus requiring lot area variance approval. A lot width variance will be administratively approved as it meets the 50% requirement of 100* at the shoreline and at the 7S* setback in accordance with a Zoning Ordinance amendment adopted in May of 2004. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /n cotukkrtHg •ppHaOkmt for voriooee, the PlanolHg Coomission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated trpffk condMons, light and air, danger of fire, rtsh to the public safety, and the effect on values of property ht the snrronndbig area. The Plannhtg Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from Hie literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such aetkms will be In keeping whh the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre dry acreage minimum requirement, if a variance is granted. A prior house existed on the substandard area and lot since prior to 1960 and the lot was legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the house meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements with respect to setbacks, lot coverage, hardcover, and building height. The lot is also sewered and not subject to primary and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area variance as the lot is a legal lot of record, has stood on its own since jMior to 1960, and the current applicants are not able to acquire additions ■' land to become conforming without making the adjacent neighbors more non- conforming, due to the amount of wetland in the area.