Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
0O2-3M9A <br />My 21.2003 <br />ratcJoM <br />Average Lakcsliorc Setback Variaace <br />The applicant has requested a variance to encroach 105* into the a\*erage lakeshore setback to <br />construct an addition, 32* x 12.5*, to the existing upper lewl lakeside deck. The subject property <br />is located on a point on Forest Lake. The property meets the 75* shoreline setback requirement <br />for all property located on Forest Lake. <br />Although the average lakeshore setback line is the same in the proposed variance as the variance <br />approved in July 2002, a new variance must be considered and approved to allow the new deck <br />addition. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Anahsis _____________________________________________ <br />In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed <br />variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light <br />and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The <br />Planning CommissloH shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the <br />Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances <br />unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />The existing conditions of the applicant's property put the entire home, existing deck and <br />proposed deck within the average lakeshore setback zone (125* setback from shoreline). The <br />proposed deck addition vrill not be any closer to the lake than the existing home and deck. The <br />existing topography, location of adjacent homes and existing vegetation all indicate that the <br />proposed deck addition will not have a negative impact on neighbors' view of the lake. Also, <br />hardcover will not change due to the existing patio. Therefore, there is a unique hardship <br />inherent to the property. <br />Staff \\*ould make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" <br />pertinent to this application: <br />1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed <br />by the official controls." <br />Should a variance be denied, the property can still be put to a reasonable use due to the existing <br />rtatiar of the existing home on the property. <br />2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by <br />the landowner." <br />The property b located at the tip ofa small peninsula where the adjacent properties * lakefhsntage b <br />on the sides of the peninsula, a circumstance unique to the property. <br />"The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." <br />Because of the inherent nedure of the propaiy, should a variance be granted the character of the <br />iocaltty will not be edtered Tins b due to the fact that the entire home doesn’t meet Zoning