My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-21-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
07-21-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 9:12:03 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 9:04:16 AM
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.
/
426
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).
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #2187 <br />July 16,1997 <br />Page 2 <br />neighboring property owner as a result, <br />The proposed plans include no apparent revisions to the envelope of the existing portions of <br />house within the 50' street setback, hence no street setback variance is required. <br />HardshipsA^ariance Justification <br />Planning Commission should review the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 3737. <br />Perhaps the primary justification for granting the side setback variance originally, was the <br />inability to coustruct additions to the north, west, or south sides of the house without <br />significant variances to the street setback or lakeshore setback requirements. >V’hile this <br />property is somewhat substandard in acreage (1.5 acres dry buildable) in the 2 acre zone, the <br />required setbacks leave a buildable envelope of only 1,800 sq. ft. Planning Commission <br />concluded that it w'ould be more appropriate to expand the residence to the east near the side <br />lot line, than to encroach any further into the street setback or lakeshore setback. Since the <br />existing house covers nearly the entire buildable envelope, applicants had no alternative but to <br />expand into a required setback. <br />The difference between the variances approved in 1996 and the current application is simply <br />the additional story above the proposed attached garage/storage addition. Some minor room <br />size and use revisions have occurred, and now the addition will include a bedroom/exercise <br />room above the garage wing. The new second story incorporates a steeper roof system, hence <br />the bulk of the structure may appear significantly greater than that which was originally <br />approved. <br />Planning Commission should consider the standard criteria for determining undue hardship in <br />reviewing this request: <br />- Can the property in question be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls? Yes: The existing residence may be continued as <br />is for its current residential use. <br />- Is tlie plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property and not <br />created by the landowner? The existing house and detached garage were <br />constructed prior to current codes, and the 150' lakeshore setback is a recent code <br />change which has had significant impact on the buildable envelope of this property. <br />While the existing house nearly meets the current setback requirements, any <br />additions outside the existing envelope would encroach on a required setback. <br />- Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The RR-IB <br />zone 30' side setback is intended to maintain the rural character of the 2 acre zone <br />and to provide open space. The only adjacent home is approximately 80' from
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.