07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M2-2809A July 21.2003 Page 3 ofS Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The applicant has requested a variance to encroach 105 ’ into the average lakeshore setback to construct an addition, 32 ’ x 12.5 ’, to the existing upper level lakeside deck. The subject property is located on a point on Forest Lake. The property meets the 75 ’ shoreline setback requirement for all property located on Forest Lake. Although the average lakeshore setback line is the same in the proposed variance as the variance approved in July 2002, a new variance must be considered and approved to allow the new deck addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public sttfety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, 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. The existing conditions of the applicant ’s property put the entire home, existing deck and proposed deck within the average lakeshore setback zone (125 ’ setback from shoreline). The proposed deck addition will not be any closer to the lake than the existing home and deck. The existing topography, location of adjacent homes and existing vegetation all indicate that the proposed dock addition will not have a negative impact on neighbors ’ view of the lake. Also, hardcover will not change due to the existing patio. Therefore, there is a unique hardship inherent to the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Should a variance be denied, the property can still be put to a reasonable use due to the existing nature of the existing home on the property. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The property is located at the tip ofa small peninsula where the adjacent properties ’ lake frontage is on the sides of the peninsula, a circumstance unique to the property. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Because of the inherent nature of the property, should a variance be granted the character of the locality will not be altered This is due to the fact that the entire home doesn V meet Zoning I J