Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE 07-3323 October 14, 2007 Page 4 of 5 The proposed retaining wall would be 48 inches high when the maximum is 42 inches. Grading and part of the retaining wall would extend into the Oto 75 foot zone. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Issues for Consideration Without any variances a replacement seasonal residence could be constructed on the lot. If the structure complied with all other applicable zoning regulations only building permit approval would be required. The steep slope would probably preclude simply moving the cabin to a location father from the lake, so a replacement residence would most likely be larger than the proposed expansion of the existing structure. The area where the structure could be located is about 20 feet above the lake so it would probably be more visible that the current structure. Is the wooded slope is an important enough ecological and visual resource to justify granting the variances that would allow it to remain undisturbed? Are there ways to mitigate the visual and water quality impacts of the variance? Possible ways to limit water quality impacts include lakeshore buffers, rain barrels, rain gardens, and similar measures. Restricting the exterior colors of the dwelling, restricting vegetation removal and requiring large shrubs in front of the deck could reduce the visual impact. The 48 inch high retaining wall outside the Oto 75 foot zone is necessitated by the changes to grade made to accommodate the septic system. It is unclear if the retaining wall within the 0 to 75 foot zone is necessary without the addition. For structural reasons the entire structure should be on the same type of foundation. Staff does not have a position on the foundation type variance. The reasons for requiring a perimeter foundation are unclear. Only in the RS district is a perimeter foundation required. Both types of foundations have frost footings. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?