Laserfiche WebLink
•0 4-3010 <br />Mi> r.:oo4 <br />rate 4 sf6 <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit 3, and should be asked fer <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In conudering applications for yanance. f'tr Planning CemmaUon shall confider the effect of the <br />propoted variance upon the health, safer/ and welfare of the eemrnunity, e.xisi.ng and anticipated <br />i traffic conditions, light and air. danger of fire, risk to the publics afer/', and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Conwilsslon shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisiens of the Zoning Code in instances >vhere their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indiv idual <br />j property under consideration, and shall recommend approval 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 that no valid hardships inherent to the land exist to warrant approval of the <br />hardcover variance The lot meets the ‘/a acre area stariaid a.s well as the widih standard. <br />The applicant has proposed 3.20S s f footprint leaving only 349 s f for allowable non- <br />structural hardcover, which would work under most citcumstanccs however the applicant <br />has proposed an anached. 3 -stall • garage. !f the applicant were to construct the garage <br />at the road. l,3cS s f of hardcc\cr for a driveway would not be necessary The Zoning <br />Ordinance specifically addresses detached t’.nagcs for lakeshore lots and reduced <br />setbacks to allow for minimal driveway. The Planning Commission has consistently <br />requiicd that properties meet all standards, including hardcoscr, when a property is being <br />rebuilt. <br />Conditional Use Permit <br />The applicant has expressed his desire to “even out” the grade on the lake side of the <br />home In doing this the applicant has proposed grading all the way down to the shore. <br />This in part has to do with the applicants proposed walk-out .-tyle home but also an <br />attempt to remove tlie existing reta.ning wall that a previous owner constructed in an <br />attempt to create a flat area for a garden The grading proposed on site will consist of a <br />substantial amount of fill on the street side of the heme, which doesn’t require a CUP <br />unless it exceeds 500 cubic yards, and also the grading cn the shcrclinc side which does <br />require a CUP. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed grading plan and his <br />comments arc anached as Exhibit F. Below, the proposed grading within 75* of the shore <br />is reviewed against the conditions established under the Shoreland Overlay District <br />Ccndiiional uses allowable w.thin shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and <br />approval proced.itcs and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established <br />in the Zc.ning Ordinance. The following additior.il evaluation criteria and ccr.ditiv-'ns <br />apply within the shoreland overlay district <br />E'caludiion crirer j A thorough evaluation of the water body and the <br />topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to <br />ensure: <br />The prev ention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public <br />waters, both during and after ccnstniction;