Laserfiche WebLink
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1995, <br />and recommended approval of certain requested variances and denial of other <br />requested variances based upon the following findings: <br />A. The lot area and lot width variances should be granted since a residence <br />alreadv exists on the property and no additional land is available tor <br />purchase by the applicant to make the lot area arvl width more contorming. <br />B. The proposed variance to allow construction of a deck in the 0-75' <br />lakeshore setback zone should be denied because no adequate hardship has <br />been justified to support such a variance. The removal of the existing <br />residence and deck area affords every opportunity and ability to construct <br />a residence and deck meeting the required 75' lakeshore setback, and the <br />relative location and current use of the residence struemre on the adjacent <br />property do not provide sufficient hardship to justify the granting of the <br />requested lakeshore setback variance. <br />C. The average lakeshore setback variance is justified based on the location of <br />the adjacent house to the north which is extremely distant from the lake and <br />therefore creates an average setback line which would force applicant's <br />proposed residence to be similarly distant from the lakeshore, resulting in <br />not one but two residences out of character with the general residential <br />development in the neighborhood. <br />D. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing detached garage which <br />is 0. r from the south side line and move that garage to a location meeting <br />all setback requirements. <br />E. The requested variances to allow a side setback of 9.5' on both the north <br />and south side lot lines where a 10' side setback is normally required, are <br />justified by the elimination of the existing 1.6' south side setback by <br />replacing that structure with a new structure meeting 95% of the required <br />setback instead of the existing 16%, and said setback variances are further <br />justified by the negative impact on room sizes and house layout if the <br />variances are not granted, and the improved location of the residence in <br />relation to lot lines provides further overall justification for the setback <br />variances. <br />Page 2 of 7