Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #04-3055 <br />8 October 2004 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In considering applications for variance, the Planning Conuntsslon shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in <br />the surrounding area. The Plannhig Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />The home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Overlay Ordinance <br />(1992) which identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a 150’ <br />setback. Prior to adopting the Shoreland ordinance the home was in a conforming <br />location, as it v>*as only subject to a 26* wetland setback at that time. <br />Staff finds that due to the location of the existing home and patios, tliere was a valid <br />hardship for granting the lake setback and hardcover variances for the conversion of <br />concrete patios to smaller decks. The resolution granting these variances stated on page 3 <br />of 5 item #2 "...any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of <br />existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will <br />not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover". <br />However, staff does not find that there is a hardship to Justify granting lake setback and <br />hardcover variances for the gazebo or walking paths proposed witli this application. The <br />gazebo could be relocated to a conforming location on tlie property and the walking patlis <br />are not necessary in order to access the property. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the gazebo and walking paths are a <br />property right of the applicant? <br />2. Are there any other issues or concerns with tliis application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship <br />present to support the request.