Laserfiche WebLink
W04-2992 <br />March 15.2004 <br />Pi|e5 of7 <br />illustrated in the elevations. However, pieces of the home that were currently fiat or a '/i <br />story will now be either pitched or a full story. It should be noted that the house to the <br />southeast, where the greatest impact occurs due to the encroachment, was rebuilt in 2002 <br />further from the lake than the past home creating the change in the average lakeshore <br />setback line causing the applicants home to become non-conforming. <br />Hardship Statement <br />The applicant completed a Hardship Documentation Form, attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In considering 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 <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planni,ig 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 rec jnunend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent tf the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that a hardship exists to warrant approval of the side setback variance. The <br />original home w-as constmeted sometime in the 1940’s with the attached garage <br />constructed in 1973 at a setback 5.6 feet from the property line. Sometime shortly after <br />that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted requiring a 10’ setback. Where this non- <br />conforming setback occurs the applicant isn’t proposing a new story but rather a hipped <br />roof where a flat roof exists. The Planning Commission should discuss the effects of <br />going from a flat roof to a pitched roof in this non-conformmg setback. <br />Staff finds a hardship exists to also grant the hardcover variance. The property is <br />cunently at 42% in the 75’ - 250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed. The applicant is <br />proposing changes to the envelope of the building but not new hardcover where non­ <br />hardcover currently exir „. Variances were granted in 1992 to allow construction of the <br />lakeside deck and no illegal hardcover has been added since those variance approvals. <br />The only notable change is that approximately 32 square feet of roof will oe added over <br />existing hardcover to create a covered entry, fhe Planning Commission should discuss <br />adding structure where hardcover currently exists, and if emy small removals should be <br />required to account for that change. <br />Lastly, staff also finds that a hardship exists to grant the requested average lakeshore <br />setback variance. The northeast corner of the home encroaches the furthest into the <br />average lakeshore setbi»ck. Th-’ applicant isn’t proposing a full second story at this <br />corner but to change to r. pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists. The house, at <br />this comer tapers west to an encroachment of 2 feet. This piece of the home will go from <br />a ‘/s story to a full story but any views the neighbor may have, if any, are minimally <br />impacted. After conducting a site visit staff has determined that any views the neighbor <br />has over this current flat roof will be minimally impacted when going to a pitched roof. <br />Also, the neighbor who is affected by the improvements constructed e new home in 2002 <br />. I