08-25-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3-293I Auguil 11,2003 Page 3 of 5 (standard two-car). The added two feet of width will not put the garage closer to the street as the current front yard setback, 28.2 feet, will be maintained. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis _________________________________ In considering appilealions/or 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 safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provblons 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. Staff finds that the front yard setback variance request is reasonable because of the topographical constraints of the property. If the garage were placed in the side yard adjacent to the street the side yard setback could not be met. Another possible alternate location could be in the rear yard although the drawback would be that it's detached and would have to be served by a long drive and would be in close proximity to the house. Also, an attached garage could be placed on the south side of the home, although the property slopes downward significantly and fill would have to be bought in so the garage could be at the same elevation as the existing home, drastically changing the character of the lot. Therefore, staff finds that the current 28.2 ’ front yard setback is the most feasible. 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.” The applicants have stated that the current garage is rotted and falling down. Short of the owners not rebuilding a garage, a variance would be required for the property to have a garage. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The topographical constraints of the property are unique and not created by the landowner. 3. “The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality." Should a variance be granted or not the property will exist as it exists today ' %