09-19-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Description of request(page 2):To be granted a variance for a deck to be placed on the main level of our home to be • able to access the lake Pages 3-4 PC Exhibit B 1. Yes the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed use is consistent with the size of homes in the surrounding area. The small size of the property unreasonably restricts the size of the home that can be built within the structural coverage limits. The Zoning chapter does not allow for placement of a deck on the exterior of our home, due to exceeding the 15%finished area ratio. However, removing the square footage from our main level living areas makes the home practically difficult to live in, being as the finished square footage becomes^'900. 2. Yes,the landowner has not created the size of the lot. We are building a small footprint home with a two stall garage and spaces that are minimally sized and cannot be reasonably reduced to accommodate the hardcover restrictions in the code. The plight of this challenge is due to the circumstance of the lot size being near the lower limit for which exceptions to the Zoning Chapter requirements are made. 3. Correct,the variance will not alter the essential character of the property. Granting the application of the variance will improve the essential character of the property. 4. Yes, it is correct that economic considerations are not part of this application. S. This is not applicable. 6. The proposed use of the structure is residential and is allowed in the zone where the property is located. 7. Our proposal is for a single family dwelling. 8. This a small property and the way that the structural coverage limitation is calculated resu�ts in an impractically sized home that can be built. It is not unreasonable to construct a home with a two stall garage, small covered front porch area and a deck attached to the lakeside part of the home to allow for access to the lake from the main li�ing area. 9. Other properties directly in the neighborhood are of a larger size and therefore the restrictions do not impact the size of the home that can be built on the property. Our parcel is among the three smallest in the neighborhood. To build a home that is similar in size and character with rest of the neighborhood the code is overly restrictive. 10. This application is for a deck on a lake home. Because of the restrictiveness of the code,the size of the rooms and the garage have been minimally sized to accommodate reasonable and practical use. Reducing and or eliminating spaces on the main level including the garage, deck and front porch would all create practical difficulties. 11. Yes,granting this application does not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the zoning code. 12. Yes,the granting of the application is not simply a convenience to the applicant. The code creates a demonstrable difficulty for a reasonable home with reasonably sized spaces that cannot be solved by eliminating or reducing the size of the spaces. We cannot design a home that allows for reasonable use where any of the rooms or size of the rooms could be changed. Decreasing the size of any of the spaces on the main floor, renders them impractically small and there are not any extraneous spaces that could be simply eliminated do not exist including the deck and the front porch. We would like to point out that we are improving the current state of the lot to better comply with the Zoning Chapter requirements be decreasing the total lot hard cover by 20%(3,968 s.f.to 2,944 s.f.). We have done our best to comply with the requirements of the hardcover rules within the code, and our proposed plans meet all other code requirements as they relate to setbacks, height restrictions,etc. We believe this request should be granted on the basis on creating a functional, livable space that will better coincide with the essential character of this Orono neighborhood. �E��i'`�L� � 3 8 � ,� AUG 1 ''I�.Olb