10-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M03-2943 September IS, 2003 Page 4 of6 the western sid. -; the home facing the manna. The current side yard setback in this location is 2.8*. The applicant isn ’t proposing to get closer to the property line. The deck would extend diagonally from the 2.8 ’ setback to an 11’ setback where it attaches to the proposed addition. 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 applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall con ider 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 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 win be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there are hardships which may justify hardcover amounts beyond what is allowed by Zoning Ordinance. Those hardships consist of the man-made lagoon at the marina bringing the property closer to the lake and the shared driveway arrangement for the lot to the north. Staff is also very agreeable to eliminating the drive access through the marina in an attempt to eliminate hardcover. From a zoning perspective, gaining access from the marina is inappropriate. However, staff does not find i hardship which would allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage which meets Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which would become non-conforming, 14.9 to 19.4 percent. Allowing this increase in structural coverage would also not fall within what has consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage requirements are strictly followed. The applicant also has alternatives for adding living additions to the house without adding to structural coverage. This would consist of having an attached garage instead of a detached which would allow living space above and tuning the existing deck (which is 6’ or higher above grade and therefore counting towards structural coverage) into Jiving space. Therefore, staff cannot support the proposal in its entirety. 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 property could exist in its current manner. 2."The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 1 e iJ