Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> V <br /> FILE#09-3410 <br /> 8 June 2009 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under <br /> consideration, and shall recommend .approval only when�it is demonstrated thaf such <br /> actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> While the application of the lake setback may potentially only add 5 feet over the <br /> required wetland setback in some areas, the shoreland regulations clearly puts a further <br /> burden on the property in the form of hardcover restrictions. The applicants' property, � <br /> although smaller than the required 2 acre minimum, has a significant amount of land <br /> area within the 0-75' setback zone. Additionally, due to the change in �interpretation <br /> there is a significant amount of legally nonconforming hardcover on the property in this <br /> zone particularly. Staff feels that while the applicants have proposed some removal of <br /> hardcover, there may be more opportunities for hardcover reduction within the 0-75' <br /> zone as the property has an excessive driveway and landscaping within this zone. <br /> Due to the minimal scope of the applicants' request and the fact that the wetland buffer <br /> requirement was not triggered, a wetland delineation was not required for this project. <br /> The addition will encroach into the required 70' wetland setback and if approved will <br /> become a legal nonconforming portion of the house. Staff finds tfiat there is a hardship <br /> inherent to the property as the home was constructed prior to the new wetland <br /> regulations resulting in an extremely restricted property. <br /> Staff can support lake and wetland setback variances for this property as the change in <br /> interpretation of Ferndale Marsh and the adoption of the new wetland regulations has <br /> placed a considerable strain on the developability of this property. <br /> Issues for Consideration , <br /> 1. The existing shed along the eastern property line appears to be illegally <br /> nonconforming. It does not appear to be consistent with building permits for <br /> sheds issued in 1998. Should the shed be removed or relocated to a location <br /> meeting the 10' side setback requirement? <br /> 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation � � <br /> Planning Staff recommends: <br /> 1. approval of the lake and wetland setback variances,and a level of 0-75' zone <br /> hardcover the Planning Commission deems reasonable; <br /> 2. the illegal nonconforming shed be relocated to a location which conforms to the <br /> 10` side setback and an after-the-fact building permit obtained; <br /> 3. the proposed silt fence be moved to just above the retaining wall and no lower <br /> than the 932 elevation. <br /> 4 <br />