Laserfiche WebLink
\ <br /> #07-3251 <br /> • February 20,2007 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> � Hardcover Calculations: . <br /> Hardcover Total Area Allowed Existing Proposed <br /> Zone in Zone Hardcover Hardcover* hardcover <br /> 0-75 3,534 s.f. ' 296 s.f.** 346 s.f. 346 s.f. <br /> 8% 9.79% 9.79% <br /> 75-250 9,378 s.f. 2,345 s.f. 2,533 s.f. 2,533 s.f. <br /> 25% 27.01% 27.01% <br /> 250 - 500 30,595 s.f. 9,179 s.f. 4,872 s.f. 4,872 s.f. <br /> 30% 15.92% 15.92% <br /> Total for <br /> Property 43,507 s.f. 11,819 s.f. 7,751 s.f.. 7,751 s.f. <br /> 27.17% 17.82% 17.82% <br /> Percentage of allowed hardcover 65.58% 65.58% <br /> * Not including areas with fabric under landscaping. � <br /> *�` Stairs plus retaining wa11 allowed by#02-2689. � <br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> L: carsidering applicatio�rs for variunce, the Planni�tg Conr�nissiv�:s/iall consitler tke effect of tile proposed <br /> varimrce irpon 1/re /tealfle, safely a�rd welfirre of tl�e contmrurity, existi�rg a�r�l cr�:ticipated traffrc coi:�litPo�is, <br /> light a�:d air, rlanger of frre, risk to tlte pirbllc safet��, antl t/ie effect o�a valiies of propert��P�t t/te srrrro[uttling <br /> area. T/te Planxing Conrmission shtrll consider reco»rntendiug approva! for varinnces from tlie literal <br /> p�ovisions of tlee Zouiftg Cotle P�e i�tstances wl�ere tlteir slrict e�:forcemeni woultl canse u�:rlire ltardsltip <br /> becarrse of circrrn:sta�:ces turiq�re to t/ie indivi�lr�al properiy crncler corrsirleratio�r, a�ad sli�/1 recommend <br /> � approva[only when it is de»io�tstrated that sttch actions wi116e in keeping wit/t tlte spiril aitd inte�rt of t/te <br /> Orono Zo�ri�:g Code. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> Was the situation that iiecessitates tlie variance not created by the applicants? Obviously the <br /> applicants constri.icted the deck, but if the Cormnission can establish tl�at the variance would <br /> be granted if it had beeii requested before the deck was reconstructed,tlus requireinent would <br /> be satisfied. . <br /> Would the deck alter the essential character of the locality? The deck is located about 100 <br /> feet from the adjacenl;house (996 Noi-th AIm Drive) (See Exhibit H.) There is a wooded area <br /> between the two houses. <br /> Without the variaizce is there reasonable use of the property? Exhibit�I shows tlze size of a <br /> deck at tlus location without a variance alid how a deck of equivalent size to the existing <br /> deck could coiistructed elsewhere within the required setbacks. The applicailts should be <br /> asked why tlie deck was constructed iii its ciurent location and coiifiguration. (Tliey were <br /> invited to provide tliis inforniatioii as a supplement to their original application.) <br />