Laserfiche WebLink
` FILE#12-3559 <br /> June 12,2012 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicants have completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, <br /> and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of <br /> the proposed variance upon the hea/th, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated tra�c conditions, ligf►t and air, danger of�re, risk to the public safety, and the <br /> effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The P/anning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the litero/ provisions of the Zoning Code in <br /> instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical di�culties because of <br /> circumstances unique to the individua/ property under consideration, and shall recommend <br /> approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> Staff Review of Practical Difficulties <br /> The existing house was built in 1935 at a time when the property encompassed much of the <br />� property around it,which has since been split up through a variety of past subdivisions and lot <br /> line rearrangements. It is the oldest home in the immediate neighborhood, and built prior to the <br /> adoption of the current zoning standards. The property owner is proposing to add an accessory <br /> building which meets maximum size limitations and setback requirements. Economic <br /> considerations are not a factor in this variance request. . <br /> The location of the existing house near the rear of the lot creates a practical difficulty in that the <br /> bulk of the property is between the house and North Shore Drive. The property is wide enough <br /> and the proposed accessory structure is located such that a conforming house could be placed <br /> near the front of the lot (streetward of the proposed accessory building) without the need for <br /> variances, and if that were the case, this application would not be necessary for the proposed <br /> accessory structure. While there is no expectation that will occur, it illustrates that the <br /> proposed accessory building location may not be unreasonable. <br /> Additional lnformation <br /> - Note that use as a guest house would require a CUP for which the property is not <br /> eligible due to being less than 4 acres in area. <br /> - Also, installation of plumbing fixtures would be subject to the limitations set forth in <br /> Section 78-1437. <br /> - Construction of the oversize structure requires that the applicants execute an Oversize <br /> Accessory Structure Covenant that places limitations on future subdivision of the <br /> property as long as the OAS exists. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> This application is somewhat unique based on the shape of the lot and the location of the <br /> existing residence within the lot. With that in mind, Planning Commission should consider a <br /> number of factors in determining whether to recommend approval of the requested variance: <br /> 1. The impact on adjoining properties is a factor that perhaps should be considered with <br /> this proposed building location. Potential impacts relate not just to the visual impacts <br /> but the intended use of the building and activity associated with it. Applicant has not <br />