03-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE#15-3717 ' 12 Feb 2015 Page 3 of 4 setback is required. Although the property owner gained additional land in the purchase of the 6,300 square foot adjacent lot, the small lot size, 50-foot required RR-B district setbacks on all sides and the sloping topography result in the need for variances in order to redevelop the property. The home is proposed to be located in the southern portion of the lot as the northern half of the property slopes down to a wetland area. The proposed setback of 26.5 feet from Fox Street is an improvement over the existing home location and due to the nature of Fox Street as a dead end road, ending at the applicant's property, there may be little to no adverse impact from the encroachment. The 16.2 foot setback from Barrett Avenue may also be reasonable as Barrett is undeveloped and likely to remain undeveloped in the future. There is an existing detached garage on the neighboring property to the west which encroaches 14 feet into the Barrett Avenue ROW; the proposed home will be approximately 62 feet from the neighboring garage. The new home location will allow for more of a usable "yard" than the existing home where most of the "yard" is actually Barrett Avenue or Fox Street ROW. The new plan will also allow for parking on the applicant's property rather than parking within the Fox Street ROW. Practical Difficulties Analysis In considering applications for variance, the P/anning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the healih, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fre, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the litera/ provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause pmctical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The applicants' property is nonconforming with respect to area and width; they have made efforts to enlarge the size via the adjacent property purchase. The applicant is proposing to construct a new home which may result in a more functional parking and yard area. The applicant's property is a 0.5± acre lot within a small-lot neighborhood which exists in a 2 acre zoning district. There would appear to be no additional impact from this proposal on the adjacent properties. The proposed additions do not appear to limit the light, air and open space currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. Staff finds the size and topography of the property creates a unique circumstance not created by the applicant; granting the applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The undeveloped rights-of-way create a practical difficulty for the property owner regarding the increased setback requirement. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? Are the proposed setbacks reasonable?