10-11-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

► M04004S September 20,2004 Page 5 of 6 Accessory Structure Area Variance Section 78-1434 (2) limits the amount of accessory buildings on lots dependant on the total area of the property. The applicant’s property is 2.905 acres and therefore limited to a maximum individual accessory building size of 1,200 s.f. where a 2,160 s.f. building is proposed, requiring a variance. The chart also limits the total amount of accessory buildings on a property to 2,400 s.f., which the applicant complies wiih. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship documentation foim in Exhibit B, and .should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /»»comlilerhig applications for i ariance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safely and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated Irajfic 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 Xoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumslances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval 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 arc number of i.ssues limiting the location of an accessory building, regardless of its size. For example: • Preservation of an alternate septic site location and 20 ’ setback from it • Ability of proposed structure to meet 20 ’ septic setbacks from existing septic site • Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75’ setback requirements from wetlands • Ability to meet 35’ wetland setback on the south side of the property • Access to building - potentially over existing and alternate mound locations Staff finds that these issues leave the alternate septic site and the applicant’s proposed building loc.ation the only viable locations f:>r a building the size the applicant has proposed. Staff questions whether the alternate septic site and the applicants proposed accessory building location couldn’t be .swapped. This would . liminate the need for setback variances. Staff also finds that there is some logic behind Section 78-1434 (2) which limits the size of individual buildings and also total buildings. As proposed, a building 2,160 s.f. may appear as large as some principal building.s which the Ordinance is attempting to prevent. Staff acknowledges that this is a visual issue only and the site is somewhat secluded, however a hardship inherent to the land is still required in order to receive a variance to this standard. There appears to be ample room on the property for aduitional, smaller accessory buildings. Staff believes that a variance for building size should not be granted merely based on whether the setbacks cannot be met. If a site meeting setbacks lends itself to support a 2,160 s.f. building, then the Planning Commission should determine whether to grant a variance. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant this variance, staff believes the only basis for approval may be the secluded nature of the lot.