Laserfiche WebLink
M04.3036 <br />July 19.3004 <br />PattJgf J <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 />/« contidering appUcatiom for variance, the Planning Cotnniiuion %hall camidcr the effect of the <br />propoted variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the connnunity, 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 uniifue to the individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approsal 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 warrant variance approval. Tlie lot is extremely nanow <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 (sec Exhibit 1). <br />However, staff does not believe there is a valid hardship to warrant approval of the <br />requested variance to encroach an additional 4* on the already non-conforming 14.4* side <br />yard setback. Tlte applicant has the ability to construct an attached 2-stall garage in front <br />of the home meeting the c.xisiing side yard sct'ojck of the house. Tliereforc. the extent of <br />variance approval to the 50* side setback requirement would l>c the existing side setbacks <br />of the house This would not increase the existing non-conforining st.itiis of the lot <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does tlic desire to not block an existing window create a valid hardship to allow an <br />additional 4* encroaclunent? <br />2. Arc 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 vard setback <br />variance where the existing setback would be maintained.