Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1552 <br />2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family <br />Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and contains a lot <br />area of 15,474 square feet or 0.36 acres. <br />3. The property was the subject of a lot width area <br />variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the <br />property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A site plan <br />was submitted which met those conditions and the house was <br />constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James <br />McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the <br />driveway functional. A further variance was granted to <br />allow up to 35% hardcover via Resolution #1908 on January <br />13, 1986. <br />4. A review of the hardcover on June 1990 indicates that <br />the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%, in <br />excess of that which was allowed by Resolution #1908. The <br />applicants currently propose to increase hardcover from <br />40.5% up to 42.7% in the 75-250* zone where only 35% was <br />allowed, and increase from approximately 0.3% to 2.3% in the <br />0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. <br />5. The applicants have not added any hardcover to the <br />property since they purchased it from the previous owner. <br />6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this variance <br />request on June 18, 1990 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial <br />based on the following findings: <br />A. No adequate hardship was given to justify further <br />increases in hardcover above that which was previously <br />approved for the previous owner. <br />B. No adequate hardship or justification was given for <br />the proposed grading work in the protected 0-75' lake- <br />shore setback zone. <br />7. In reviewing the site plan. Council finds that plans <br />could be revised so that the proposed patio could feasibly <br />be constructed on the property without excavation or <br />hardcover in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. <br />Further, the Council finds that because the driveway was <br />constructed in excess of the driveway hardcover previously <br />approved, no additional hardcover is justified without <br />removal of all excess portions of the driveway. <br />Page 2 of 4