Laserfiche WebLink
If* r r ^ > <br />3.The Orono Planning Conunission initially reviewed this application at a public <br />hearing held on June 16,2003 and: subsequently at a continued hearing held on July <br />28, 2003. The applicants revised their initial proposal, and on July 21, 2003 <br />the Planning Commission recommended partial denial and conditional approval of <br />the variances needed for the revised proposal on a 7-0 vote, based on the following <br />findings: <br />a)The property contains an existing residence structure and detached garage. <br />The applicants wish to remove the existing detached garage, add an attached <br />garage to portions of the existing house, and construct a second story addition <br />over the new garage and existing house. A portion of the existing house is <br />located less than 75' from the shoreline, and the house severely encroaches <br />the required 10' yard on both sides. The property also contains an existing <br />deck within the 0-75' zone and other features which constitute additional <br />hardcover on the property. <br />Approval for the second story structure encroachment within 0-75' setback <br />zone, 65' from the shoreline is a reasonable request w’hich is supported by the <br />nardship createu oy the location of the existing home. <br />The side setback variances lo allow a second story of structure to encroach <br />within 4.3' of the left side lot line and within 2.4' of the right side lot line <br />should not be approved, because the resulting stnicture would tend to <br />overshadow adjoining properties and lead to future maintenance issues. <br />The side setback variances requested for an attached garage addition to <br />encroach within 6' of the left side lot line should not be approved, as the <br />garage can be shifted to meet the 10' required side setback with some interior <br />design changes, and no hardship exists to support this request. <br />The removal of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75' zone is appropriate, and <br />replacement with a smaller 95 s.f. deck as proposed, still slightly encroaching <br />the average setback line, is a reasonable request given the location of the <br />existing house and the minimal impacts on neighboring views of the lake <br />created by the revised deck proposal. <br />Page 2 of7 <br />1 <br />4