Laserfiche WebLink
• After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />MS.2M2 <br />November 17,2003 <br />Page 4 of7 <br />Lot Area Variance <br />The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild a new home. <br />Because the lot is only 0.47 acres in area when 0.50 acres is normally allowed a lot area <br />variance is required. The lot meets the width requirement of 120 ’ when 100 ’ is required. <br />Hardcover Variance <br />Currently a large home exists within both the 0-75 ’ zone and the 75-250 ’ zone. The <br />applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home entirely <br />within the 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the boathouse near <br />the shoreline, therefore no variance is required for the 0-75 ’ zone. However, the <br />applicant is proposing a 3,895 s.f. home, 72 s.f. of walk, and 1,060 s.f. of driveway in the <br />75-250 ’ zone which puts the hardcover for the zone at 44% requiring a variance. <br />Lot Coverage by Structures V’ariance <br />The applicants are proposing to tear down the existing house and rebuild a structure <br />3,895 square feet in size. This figure doesn’t include any second story decks. This <br />proposed house footprint puts the lot at 19% structural coverage when 15% is allowed <br />thus requiring a variance. The existing house meets the 15% structural coverage limit. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In consUfflng oppllcmlons Jot varlonco^ iho Planning Contntission shall considtt tht offtet oftht <br />proposed vorlanee upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />traffic eondltioHs, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission 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 of circumstances unique to the Individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that there are no viable hardships to approve the hardcover and structural <br />coverage variances as proposed. Staff would consider supporting a hardcover variance <br />due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a driveway tum-around however, not <br />the proposed 44%. This 44% also doesn’t include any decking or patio and staff feels <br />that the 44% has the potential to get even larger in the future. Staff has advised the <br />applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and <br />some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised that staff is not entirely <br />opposed to a hardcover variance however the proposal needs to be re-worked to a <br />hardcover percentage much less than the proposed 44%. <br />The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% stmctural coverage. Staff <br />advised the applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on <br />J