Laserfiche WebLink
L t� , <br /> FILE#08-3335 <br /> 16 January 2008 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> The applicants' existing site runs along the western edge of the driveway and Colin <br /> Drive. This has been identified as a non-conforming system and it must be abandoned. <br /> The applicants' survey identifies one potential septic treatment location however an <br /> additional location is necessary as the existing area must be abandoned. Evaluation of <br /> - septic treatment areas is difficult or impossible in the winter. <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 /> In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the <br /> effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare •of the community, ' <br /> existing and anficipated trafific conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public <br /> safety, and fhe effect on values of properEy in the surrounding area. The Planning <br /> Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal <br /> provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where fheir strict enforcement would cause <br /> undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under <br /> consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such � <br /> actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> Regarding the location of the existing home it might be reasonable to consider allowing <br /> the proposed location for the pool and pool building; however staff would argue that <br /> there are alternate locations to construct the pool and pool building meeting the <br /> . setbacks; as shown in Exhibit D3. Additionally, the applicants have current and future <br /> septic needs to consider. Staff would argue that the applicants have reasonable use of <br /> the property and that providing for sewage treatment must be considered above a pool <br /> � amenity. If there is not an appropriate location for a pool and septic treatmenf areas the , <br /> septic treatment areas must prevail. While one may argue that the proposed treatment � � <br /> area shown on the survey has the potential to provide 20 years of treatment for the <br /> property, this subdivision does not fit into the City's current public sewer connection <br /> plans. � , <br /> Additionally, timing of the Council review is another issue that must be discussed. <br /> Considering the limited schedule for PC review, Staff feels that it is reasonable to bring <br /> the variance request to the Planning Commission prior to receiving information regarding . <br /> an alternate septic treatment site provided that the application doesn't move forward for� <br /> , . final approval to the City Council until a secondary site is..identified. unless the <br /> recommendation from the Planning Commission is for denial. <br /> � Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the applicants have reasonable use of <br /> ' the property without the pool and pool building? <br /> 2. Should the future septic treatment areas be considered before allowing a . . <br /> recreational amenity such as a pool to take up area on the property? <br /> 3. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that there is no other appropriate location <br /> � for the pool which would meet the required setbacks? <br /> 4. Does the Planning Commission feel that the proposed pool building is <br /> reasonable, and in a reasonable location? - <br /> 5. Does the Planning Commission feel that screening is necessary? If so, what <br /> type? . <br /> 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> 3 <br />