Laserfiche WebLink
FILE 06-3226 <br /> October 16,2006 ± <br /> • Page 2 of 2 <br /> -- -- ------ -- -- ----- --- -- - ------ - ----- -- --- ---- -- - -- --- --- - - <br /> Setback V�riance <br /> The back wall of the garage sits at an angle to the side property liiie. The front cor��er of tlus <br /> wall is only 21.2 feet fioiii the side property line. The rear corner is 30 feet. The only living <br /> space above the garage is a walk-iii closet. It coiiforms to �11e setback. <br /> �Hardship Statement <br /> The applicants are requesting a varia.nce now for their own peace of mind and to avoid <br /> problems if the property is ever sold. They understand that if the request is denied the City <br /> eould require reinoval of the st�ucture. They have completed the Hardship Documentatioii <br /> Forin attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the <br /> application. � <br /> Hardship Analysis � <br /> Lr co�rsirlering app/ications fvr vrrrirurce, t/re Plrurning Commission s/ra!!consider ihe effect of�I1e proposet! <br /> variance rrpon /he healtlr, safety «nr!welfare of tl�e comnuuriry, e.t-isting«nr!airticipated traffrc conditioits, <br /> !ig/rt anr!nir, rlairger of frre, risk lo tlre ptrblic srrfefy, a�rd 1/ie effecl on values of proper�J�in flre s[rrrorutdi�tg. <br /> area. T/re Plmr�ri�rg Commissiorr slrall consirler recom��te�rding r�pprov�rl for vari�urces fro�n tlle /iter«l <br /> provisions of t/ie Zaiiug Cotle in insirurces where ilreir slrict enforcement would cru�se «ntlue /rardskip <br /> because of circunrstances rrniqrre !o the individual property uirrler cousirleration, �unl slea![ recora�uend <br /> «pprova!o�rly when ii is delnonstratetl t/�at srrch actio�rs wi!l be i�r keeping witlr t/re spirit and intent of the <br /> ' Orono Zoiring Code. <br /> Staff fiiids the followuig ha.rdships exist, which warrant approval of the variances as <br /> � requested: <br /> 1. The house was constructed with a permit .and proper inspections. Theie is no <br /> indication in the file that tllere was any question about tlie location of the side lot line. <br /> The applicauts were iiot involved in construction of the house. They purchased it six <br /> years after it was built with the expectation that the house was conforming or legally <br /> non-confouiiuig. <br /> ' 2. �To bring the garage into conforivance with the setback would require total <br /> reconstructioii of the tluee-car garage. Because of the angle between the garage wing <br /> ' and niaiii portion�of the house, reconstruction of the adjacent utility rooni would <br /> probably be necessary as well. , <br /> Staff also finds allowiiig tlie garage to remaiiz where it is would iiot be detrinlental to the <br /> �surrounding properties. The adjaceiit lot is oddly sliaped. The portion of it adjaceiit to the <br /> garage is wooded. The house oii that lot is over 180 feet froiil the applicants' garage so the <br /> reduced setback is not readily apparent. � <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> Are there auy other issues or concerns with this al�plicai7on? . <br /> St�ff Recommendation � <br /> Plaiming Staf�f reconuiiends approval of the setback variance to allow ihe garage to reinain as <br /> coiisfiructed. <br />