Laserfiche WebLink
A04-3036 <br />July 19. 2004 <br />Pase3 of3 <br />Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit B, and should be <br />asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />III cciisiiUrlitg appllcarlotis for variance, the Planning Commission sUaU ronsiflrr thf 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 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 there is a hardship to waiTant variance approval. The lot is extremely naiTOw <br />but substantially deep. If the 50 ’ setbacks were strictly obeyed, 10 ’ of width would be <br />allowed for a building, which is not reasonable as the applicants would be forced to <br />construct a long and narrow residence (see Exhibit I). <br />However, staff does not believe there is a valid hardship to warrant approval of the <br />requested variance to encroach an additional -i’ on the already non-conforming 14.4 ’ side <br />yard setback. The applicant has the ability to construct an attached 2-stall garage in front <br />of the home meeting the existing side yard setback of the house. Therefore, the extent of <br />variance approval to the 50' side setback requirement would be the existing side setbacks <br />of the house. This would not increase the existing non-conforming status of the lot. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the desire to not block an existing window create a valid hardship to allow an <br />additional 4 ’ encroaclunent? <br />2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the requested variance. Staff would support approval of a side yard setback <br />variance where the existing setback would be maintained. <br />d&asasi —*■