10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MM.J053 October m. 2004 Pose J of 4 Total Lot Area ToUl Structural Cov erage 86.129 s.f. (1.97 acres)Allowed: 12.919 s.f (15%) Existing & Proposed: 4,941 s f (5.7%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed HaHcover 0-75 19,880 sf Os.f (O*.) 3.768 s.f (19^0)NO CHANGE 75 - 250 43.247 s f 10.812 s f (25%) 9.075 s.f (20 9«%)NO CHANGE 250 - 500 23.002 s f 6.901 s.f (305o) 0 s.f (0%)NO CHANGE Lake Setback Variance The applicant’s have proposed to replace an existing dormer on the lake side of the home with a larger dormer This dormer will exist over existing roof and not increase the existing, non-conforming. 39 foot lake setback. No new hardcover or structural coverage is proposed llardfbip Statemeut Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in txhibil B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Anahsis In considtrint appikatlom for variance, the Hanning Conembshn shall coniUer the effect of the proposed xwlance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air. danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Hanning Commission thaU consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provhians of the Zoning Code in Instances where their urict enforcement would cause undue hardship becanse of circumstances unique to the individual property under consUerathH, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that the hardship is the existing location of the home. To replace even the dormer that exists today would require a variance due to the house ’s 39 foot setback to the lake. The proposed dormer also docs not increase the existing non-conforming situation as the peak will match the dormer on the other side of the home and the remaining roof structure and chimneys extend even higher than the proposed dormer ’s peak. Staff finds that the applicant is requesting a reasonable improvement without increasing the non-conformity, with the hardship being the current setback of the house. Past renovation applications arc typically approved if the non-confonnity is not increased, the changes arc less than 50^o of the volume and value of the struciiue, hardcover and structural coverage arc not increased, and there are no negative impacts to