Laserfiche WebLink
FILE C04-306S <br />e OctatM> 2004 <br />Ps9«4of4 <br />Hardship Analysb <br />In cnnsUering nppikmiions for vorionct, the Ptonning Commission skoO consUrr the effect of the <br />proposed voriance upon the health, safety and welfare of the commanlty, ejdsting and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in <br />the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending appro%al for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hard^lp because of circumstances unlgue to the individual property under consideration, and <br />titatt recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Orono 7*tning Code. <br />The home u-as constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Overlay Ordinance <br />(1992) which identified French Lake as a natural environment lake requiring a ISO' <br />setback. Prior to adopting the Shoreland ordinance the home was in a conforming <br />location, as it was only subject to a 26* wetland setback at that time. <br />Staff finds that due to the location of the existing home and patios, thc^c was a valid <br />hardship for granting the lake setback and hardcover variances for the conversion of <br />concrete patios to smaller decks. The resolution granting these variances stated on page 3 <br />of 5 item *2 "...any fiiiure requests to increa.se hardcover or change the nature of <br />existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will <br />not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover". <br />However, staff does not find that there is a hardship to justify granting lake setback and <br />hardcover variances for the gazebo or walking paths proposed with this application. The <br />gazebo could be relocated to a conforming location on the property and the walking paths <br />arc not necessar}' in order to access the property. <br />Issues for CoBsidcralioB <br />1. Docs the Planning Commission feel that the gazebo and walking paths are a <br />property right of the applicant? <br />2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff RecommeBdation <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested as there is no hardship <br />present to support the request.