Laserfiche WebLink
Hardship Statement <br />#05-3084 <br />February 22, 2005 <br />Page 3 of3 <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be in keep inf( with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoninf( Code. <br />Staff finds that there is a hardship that supports some degree of variance. The existing <br />house was constructed prior to adoption of the current zoning regulations. Also, past <br />setbacks were apparently measured from the centerline of the roadway because the <br />property is legally described to the centerline of the roadway. The northwest comer of <br />the house meets a 100' setback from the centerline of the road, but because the lot line <br />curves with the roadway the southwest comer is shown at a 95' setback. The existing <br />Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 1975 established the front lot line as the edge of <br />the right-of-way, which occurred much later than construction of the house. <br />Now that a hardship has been established, it should be determined to what degree a front <br />yard setback variance should be granted. It is clear that an attached garage cannot meet <br />the 100' setback because in moving that far off the front lot line it would no longer be <br />attached. In the past the Planning Commission has granted variances for situations such <br />as this, however no increase in the non-conformity is usually granted. Therefore, staff <br />finds that the applicant could revise the depth of the garage to 24' so as not to become <br />closer than 77' to the front lot line while still providing egress from the two windows off <br />the 2nd story of the existing home by creating a notch in the roof which would not be <br />visible from the road or end view. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. What degree of a front yard setback variance should be granted? <br />2. Should an increase in the existing non-conforming setback of 77' be permitted? <br />3. Is it reasonable to grant a variance for an attached garage when a detached garage <br />could be constructed on the site within all setbacks? How about a 3-car total attached <br />garage? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />To deny the 72' front yard setback variance request. Staff would recommend approval of <br />a front yard setback variance of 77' which wouldn't increase the existing non-conforming <br />setback. The Planning Commission should advise the applicant to redesign the garage in <br />order to achieve a 77' setback.