09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT J| length of the 20 ft tall wall of the new home on this side increases from 45 ft to 75 ft, creating 68 ft of new intrusion into the presently provided 12 ft side yard No effective or meaningful improvement to mitigate the reduced yard or the extension of the length of the house is provided by the new plan. This side yard is both eftcctively. and. if measured along its length, is actually reducixl from that provided by the present hoiiid B Extreme increase in building bulk and height not buffered by an adequate side yard The present home is a single story home with a low profile mansard roof, see photos two and three. The new house, with 2400 sf of lot coverage, a full second story and a steeply pitched roof to perhaps provide a livable attic space will be by design signiftcamly taller tlian the present home and the adjacent homes at 340 and 348 And, the length of this new wail of home intruding into the side yard increases from 45 ft tj 75 ft The applicants have not taken the care to provide an elevation for this side of the home, nor any consideration of buffering or mitigation of the eftect of the proposed greatly increased bulk and massing on the adiacent properties. No variance should be approved for this side yard The solution is, as with all other properties redeveloped along Westlake, wait until you can acquire a neighbor, and by consolidation provide a 100 ft wide parcel that can support ad^uate side yards for this scale of home consistent with the surroundings No twr story house has been built on Westlake on a lot this small This is trx> much house for this site m this neighborhood 5. Reasonable Applkatien of the Standards and Findings for Crantinf a Variance Orono’s Ordinance asks two basic questions to determine if a variance should be granted First. “What is so unique about this property compared to rMheis that it cannot be used under same standards applied to all other similar properties, and creates a hardship to the owner's reasonable and expected use and enjoyment of the property?” In the Orono Code the answer to this question has two elcmcms. First, the threshold finding, "How unique is this?" Second, the severity finding, "Is this really a severe hardship?" The required threshold findings are (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by tlic landowner (4) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. (8) The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property (9) The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. (12) The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.