Laserfiche WebLink
1 1 <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 anticipafed trafific conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to fhe public <br /> safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning <br /> Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the liferal <br /> � provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br /> undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under <br /> consideration, and shall recommend approval only when if 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 treatment areas the <br /> septic treatment areas must prevail. While one may argue that the proposed treatment <br /> area shown on the sunrey 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 />