06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■M-3010 May r. 1004 Pat«4erft Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship staicnieni in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship AnaKsb ___________________________________________________ In consUeung applicMiont for variance, the Planning Commluion vltall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community , existing and anticipated traffic conditions, l^ht and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Cemmhtion shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only w hen It is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Stair finds that no valid hardships inherent to the land exist to warrant approval of the hardcover variance. The lot meets the '"j acre area standard os well as the width standard The applicant has proposed 3.208 s.f footprint leasing only 349 s.f. for allowable non- structural hardenscr. which would work under most circun stances however the applicant has proposed an attached. 3-stall garage. If the applicant were to construct the garage at the road, 1.368 s f. of hardcover for a dnseway would not be necessary ’. The Zoning Ordinance specifically addresses detached garages for lakeshore lots and reduced setbacks to allow for minimal dri\eway. The Planning Commission has consistently required that properties meet ail standards, including hardenser. when a property is being rebuilt. Conditional L'se Permit The applicant has expressed his desire to *’e\en out*’ the grade on the lake side of the home. In doing this the applicant ha. proposed grading all the way down to the shore. Ihis in part has to do with the applicants proposed walk-out style home but also an attempt to remove the existing retaining wall that a previous owTier constructed in an attempt to create a flat area for a garden. The grading proposed on site will consist of a substantial amount of fill on the street side of the home, which doesn't require a CLP unless it exceeds 500 cubic yards, and also the grading on the shoreline side which does require a CUP. The C:ty Engineer has reviewed the proposed grading plan and his comments are anached as Exhibit F. Below, the proposed grading within 75’ of the shore is reviewed against the conditions established under the Shoreland Overlay District: Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in the Zoning Ordinance. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shoreland overlay district: (1) Evaluation criteria A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: a. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction;