02-22-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#OS-3084 , February 22,2005 P�ge 3 of 3 Hardship Statement Applicant has provicled a brief hardship stltement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarcling the application. Hardshi Anal sis In consideriieg applicntio►rs for variai:ce,t/�e Plrur»irig Co�n��:ission sleal/consider ilee effect of tlre proposed variaiice upon tGe frealtl�,s�ifety and welfare of t/re canmerrtiry,existi�tg antl unticipated traffrc con�lltiorts, lig/rt and air, rlanger offrre,risk to Ilre public snfety,and the ejfect on valcres of property in the surrourtdii�g aren. T/1e Plan�riirg Com»rission slra!/co��sider recommenrling approva/ for variairces from tlre lilera!provisior�s nf dre Za�ing Code iir ii�strueces wllere ti�eir strict errfurcement woirlrl cause undue l��rrlship because of circumstcueces unique to t/te individrra[ property under coirsideration, �uu!sha/l reconrfaend approval only wheie it is rlen:onstrated t/rrrt suc/1 «ctions wil!be in keepin�wiih t/re spirit«�rd intent of tbe Orono Zonin�Code. Staff finds that there is a hardship that supports some degree of variance. The existing house was constructed prior to adoption of the current zoning regulations. Also, past setbacks were apparently measurecl from the centerline of the roadway because the property is legally described to the centerline of the roadway. The northwest corner of the house meets a 100' setback from the centerline of the road, but because the lot line curves with the roadway the southwest corner is shown at a 95' setback. The existing Zoning Ordinance wluch was adopted in 1975 established the front lot line as the edge of the right-of-way, which occurred much later than construction of the house. Now that a hardship has been established, it should be determined to what degree a front yard setback variance should be granted. It is clear that an attached garage cannot ineet the 100' setback because iil moving that far off the front lot line it would no longer be attached. In the past the Plamiing Conunission has granted variances far sihiations such as this, however no increase in the noi�-conformity is usually granted. Therefore, staff finds that the applicant could revise the depth of the garage to 24' so as not to become closer than 77' to the front lot line while still providing egress from the two windows off the 2"d story of the existing home by creating a notch in the roof which would not be visible from the road or end view. Issues for Consideration 1. What degree of a front yard setback variance should be granted? 2. Should an increase in the existing non-conforining setback of 77' be permitted? 3. Is it reasonable to grant a variance for an attached garage when a detached garage could be constructed on the site within all setbacks? How about a 3-car total attacl�ed garage? 4, Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation To deny the 72' front yard setback variance requesi. Staff would recoinmend approval of a front yard setback variance of 77' which wouldn't increase the existing non-conforming setback, The Plaiuiing Commission should advise the applicant to redesign the garage iil order to achieve a 77' setUack.