Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />•04-3044 <br />Au(usi U. 2004 <br />Pit*3 of 4 <br />1 Hardcover <br />i Zone <br />Total Area in <br />Zone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />j 75 - 250 17,135 s.f.4.284 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />3.362 s.f <br />(20%) <br />3.622 s f <br />(21%) <br />1 250-500 <br />i <br />60 s.f.18 5 f <br />(30»'o) <br />0 s f • <br />t0%) <br />0 s.f <br />(0%) <br />After exclusion of fabric or plasiic-Iincd landscape beds <br />Rear Yard Setback Variance . . u u <br />The applicani has proposed to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang <br />located in the rear yard. Included for removal are the rock on plastic in the rear >arJ, <br />some wood rail-road lie retaining walls, pavers, planter areas and some concrete patio <br />areas on ihe north and south side of the home. The existing 1.7 x 5.7 encroachment is a <br />chimney shaft that will remain and is an allowed encroachment <br />The applicant is proposing to add a garage and master suite addition to the cast side of the <br />home and a covered entry on the north side, all meeting the required setbacks. The <br />applicant is also proposing to construct a kitchen addition to the south side of the home in <br />line with the current house. This requires a rear yard setback v.ariance because the lot <br />line jogs to the east 10*. The applicant is also proposing a deck to the cast of the kitchen <br />addition, which will meet all setback requirements <br />Hardship Slalcmeol <br />Applicani has presided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application <br />Hardship Analysis <br />r*» con%Uering applicathm for \wianco. Ihe Flonnlng Commtuion %halt consider the effect of ihe | <br />proposed xwlance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />I traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect onx-alues of ^ <br />j for xariances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indixidual <br />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 />Suff finds that there arc hard.ships inherent to the land. For example, the jogged rear <br />property line and the sloping topography, all somewhat restricting the applicant from <br />meeting the required 30* rear yard setback. Further, the Zoning Ordinance defines the <br />front on comer lots as the shortest frontage. In this case that being Minnie Avenue even <br />through the applicant's front door faces Cherry Avenue and the property has a Cherry <br />Avenue address. If Cherry Avenue were considered the front only a 10 ’ setback to the <br />west would be required, allowing the applicant to proceed without variances. Adding to <br />all mentioned above is the layout of the existing home and what best fits within that <br />envelope.