Laserfiche WebLink
FILEf04-2M0 <br />J«nu»fy 13. 2004 <br />F«g«3olS <br />Hardcpygr Calcutotions; <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />Total Area in <br />Zone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hai^covcr <br />75-250 14,170 s.f 3.542 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />0 s.f.* <br />(0 */o) <br />Os.f <br />(0»-o) <br />250 - 500 19.077s.f 5.723 s.f <br />(30 “/o) <br />3.51 Is.f* <br />( 18.4 *..)No Change <br />FroDt Yard Setback Variance <br />The existing home i*as constructed 20* from the front property line, where 35* is <br />required, probably due to the topography of the lot, which is sloping to the rear >ard with <br />a wetland area in the center. The view of the home from Kelly Avenue (Fxhibil Bl) <br />illustrates a berm-like front yard. The impact of the proposed 2"** story' addition should be <br />lessened because of this feature. Due to the location of the home on the lot, any additions <br />or alterations to the front of the home require a variance. The applicant is proposing a 2"^ <br />story addition above the northwest portion of her home to add a master bedroom suite. <br />The number of tall pine trees lining Kelly Avenue would screen the proposed 2*^ story <br />addition from the Carman Road and Kelly Avenue intersection, and a number of trees <br />lining the northwest property line which would screen the addition from the adjoining <br />property. <br />Hardship Stalcnicnl <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysts <br />In consUerimt nipticMions Jot variance, ike Planning Commiaion %haU comUer the effect oj the <br />propoicd variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the convnunin. 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 Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for s-ariances <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 indhidual 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 />Staff finds that a hardship exists due to the location of the home at the substandard <br />setback, and the challenging topography of the lot. <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue <br />hardship” pertinent to this application