08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M03-293I AugvM 11,2003 Page3»rS (standard two-car). The added two feel of w idth will not put the garage closer to the street as the current front yard sethack, 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 Analysb /« comlJering applicallont for variance, the Planning Commlulon 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 offire, risk to the public safety, and the (tffect 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 t» the Individual property under consideration, and shatt recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that suck actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. SUiff finds that the front >ard setback variance request is reasonable bc.*ause of the topographical constraints of the property. If the g>iragc 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 woul J have to be ser\cd 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 } foperty slopes dowTiward significantly and fill would ha\e to be K'.ight in so the garage tould be at the same elevation as the existing home, dra.stically 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 follow ing recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship ” pertinent to this application: 1."The properly in ouestion cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The applicants ha\e statal that the current garage is rotleilunJfalling down Short of the owners not rebuilding a garage, a variance would be requiredfor the property to have a garage. "The plight of the lar.dow ner is due *0 circum.stanccs unique to his property not created by the landowner." The topographical constraints of the property are unique and not created by the landowner "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Should a vari,jtce be granted or not the property- will exist as it exists today