03-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fimdings1-250' zone is 58.0*^%. existing hardcoverCor the LR-lc District and amounts are unusuallyallowed in the harScSti?n the 75-250* zone. Alth^nnh*I*k^ hardcover normallv‘rdcover in both the 0-75'^and 75*i?5V'®*"^® proposed tot overall decrease in harWvar in hn!h in *do not justify grantinv' of i>ho •-« both zones# such proposedI hatdcov.t of iS?« ii ?L 5 ,i«.i th« Ton^. *Thl‘i°"iAVrVho'u7‘‘l%‘?| f^“ij f .trucotur. 1„ >»»d addition .111 b° appcoxlmltVw ?: S"* . A ground level deck extends f^omVh^- k® the » and at its closest point currVnf i towards the a«. any •gtandfath.rod- right to°co ‘"s*t«*cf aSl" rhat'Uct'’ Hating deck, tending to prolono and <-/ "!"*"* nature lity of the existing strultSre?' ^ ‘"‘*nsify the degree of iich requires a mlnlmun^ lotVrea of ‘21 ?J*‘^'"tlal toning n of a residence. Furthermore %hV i V ?° fo? ‘nee Th®®*" lot width is no^aily 71 feet in nee. These factors combine to erATl- ^ construction structure on the property resultV i * situation where >d a reduction in open visual not generally in keeoina w4 i-K the ted in the orono Land^se ?\^an°ehW Policy inagement Plan, as follows: chapter of the Orono LIGHT^AND air . ^ SufnSent*S?e°J® PRESERVATION OP OPEN 'ighborhood and on each lot to oStpnl- *** provided in •aaguat. light, air and ^V,rl°at‘i;rf"o'r riVV.‘:^di"n't.*^^ 5. Approval of the proposed addition %#ould also be in direct conflict with the Urban Land Use ^ 'icy 110 within the Land Use Plan, as follows:10. THE DESIGN AND NSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE tritOTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAM ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot sise, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents.6. The granting of the requested var . .^s would result in thefollowing violations of Section 10.08, Si vision 3(a) of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first x;omply before the requested variances can be granted: A. The conditions of lot area, lot width and existing lakeshore setback are not peculiar to this property but are found in many similar properties within the LR-IB zoning district and in this general neighborhood. B. Granting of the proposed variances does not deny the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The house in its current condition has served as a functional residence for this and previous owners. C. The property owner bought the property with the full knowledge that a variance would be required in order to construct the proposed addition, hence the plight of the land owner is effectively created by the land owner. D. The variance, if granted, will tend to alter the essential character of the locality by increasing the visual density of the neighborhood and the immediate property. E. The granting of the requested variances will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate a deomonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The property owners' claim that the space within the dining room is not adequate for applicant's intended use of the area as a formal dining room with major furniture components, does not constitute a hardship sufficient to justify variance approval. Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 4