01-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

* After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds «0J-»62 Novtmbcr 17.200J Page 4 of 7 Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild a new home. Because the lot is only 0.47 acres in area when 0.50 acres is normally allowed a lot area variance is required. The lot meets the width requirement of 120’ when 100 ’ is required. Hardcover Variance Currently a large home exists within both the 0-75 ’ zone and the 75-250’ zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home entirely within the 75-250’ zone. Tlic applicants have also agreed to remove the boathouse near the shoreline, therefore no variance is required for the 0-75 ’ zone. However, the applicant is proposing a 3,893 s.f. home. 72 s.f of walk, and 1,060 s.f. of driveway in the 75-250’ zone which puts the hardcover for the zone at 44®/o requiring a variance. Lot Coverage by Structures Variance The applicants ate proposing to tear down the existing house and rebuild a structure 3,895 square feet in size. This figure doesn’t include any second stoiy decks. This proposed house footprint puts the lot at 19% structural coverage when 15®/o is allowed thus requiring a variance. The existing house meets the 15®/4 structural coverage limit. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis In considering appiicationsfor variance, the Pianning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the heaith, safety and welfare of the communit)', existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individuat property under consideration, and shall recommend appri. val only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there are no viable hardships to approve the hardcover and structural co\ erage % ariances as proposed. Staff would consider supporting a hardcover variance due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a driveway tum-around however, not the proposed 44%. This 44% also doesn't include any decking or patio and staff feels that the 44% has the potential to get even larger in the future. Staff has advised the applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised that staff is not entirely opposed to a hardcover variance however the proposal needs to be re-worked to a hardcover percentage much less than the proposed 44%. The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% structural coverage. Stafl' advised the applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on