My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-25-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
08-25-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:44:20 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 2:44:57 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
419
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
M)3-2936 <br />August 18,2003 <br />PigcSofS <br />the deck. <br />Staff docs find a hardship in allowing 37% hardcover in the 250-500 ’ zone. The <br />orientation of the property results in very little area in the zone (6,305 s.f.). Because of <br />the narrowness of the lot, to meet the hardcover restrictions in the 75-250’ zone, the <br />garage is forced to be towards the street end of the property. The applicants have made a <br />good faith effort in trying to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements by moving the garage <br />to meet setbacks. Also, a three car garage is not uncharacteristic with rebuilds. The <br />proposed driveway, with tum-around, is not unreasonable due to safety concerns on <br />Casco Circle. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variance in <br />the 250-500 ’ zone allowing 37% hardcover when 30% is normally allowed due to the <br />narrowness of the lot, limited area in the zone, and the sight visibility issues on Casco <br />Circle requiring a tum-around. <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue <br />hardship ’’ pertinent to this application: <br />1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls." <br />The property can remain in its current state should the variances be denied. Any <br />rebuild or remodel which resulted in added hardcover would require hardcover <br />variances because the lot is currently over in the 0-75’zone and the 250-500' <br />zone. <br />2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br />created by the landowner." <br />The lot area and width hardships and the hardcover hardship in the 250-500' <br />zone result from the long and narrow orientation of the lot which is unique to the <br />property, not circumstances created by the landowner. <br />However, there are no unique circumstances within the 0-75 ’ zone, unique to the <br />property, which create a hardship not created by the landowner. The Planning <br />Commission should discuss whether a hardship exists in the fact that the current <br />owners didn't construct the deck but inherited it with the property. <br />3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." <br />Should the lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances be granted, the essential <br />character of the locality would not be compromised. Afany of the lots in the <br />neighborhood have similar non-conformities. <br />4."Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the tenns of the Zoning Chapter." <br />% <br />f .• <br />h <br />.k <br />rfiriliiiaiitA
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.