09/15/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 15, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued) accessing the property from the adjacent marina. This lot is currently substandard with respect to hardcover and side yard setback. Waataja stated that, in fact, when calculating hardcover percentages for the 75-250' zone the area within the shared driveway easement(490 s.f.)was taken out of the lot area so as not to either help or hinder the hardcover percentages. This is because this portion of the shared drive does not benefit the applicant. The area of the shared driveway within the 250-500' zone was added into the calculations for hardcover because the applicant benefits from this portion of the drive. The dramatic decreases in hardcover amounts for the proposal are the results of the applicant eliminating the drive access through the marina and utilizing the existing shared drive. This includes a net decrease of approximately 413 square feet of hardcover or 13% in the 75-250' zone. In the 250-500' zone there would be a decrease of approximately 754 square feet or 12%. Although Planning Department staff is encouraged by the proposed decreases in hardcover and the existing drive through the marina being eliminated, Waataja stated that the overall proposal doesn't fit within requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,because the proposal puts the property over on structural coverage. Staff does not find a hardship which would allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage which meets the Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which would become non-conforming, 14.9 to 19.4 percent. Allowing this increase in structural coverage would also not fall within what has consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage requirements are strictly followed. Waataja also stated the current side yard setback in this location is 2.8', and although the applicant isn't proposing to get closer to the property line, the deck would extend diagonally from the 2.8' setback to an 11' setback where it attaches to the proposed addition. Waataja reported that staff would recommend: 1. Denial of the proposal due to the increases in structural coverage beyond what is allowed by Ordinance. No unique hardship has been presented which would justify expanding the current home's footprint, given alternatives for an addition exist. Chair Smith asked the applicants what they wished to accomplish with the addition. Mr. Labalt explained that they have a pretty small home and small lot and would like more room to accommodate their family. He noted that hardcover is the level it has always been and he was attempting to decrease the amount of hardcover on the site. Hawn indicated that the issue she found most difficult was that of structural coverage. PAGE 17 of 25