06-30-1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. � � ' �EGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 30 , 1980 Page 8 The third question is whether or not a hardship has been VARIANCE demonstrated to justify a hardcover variance . The 1856 Shadywood existing property is 41% har dcover consisting of the (Continued) four buildings and a large amount of driveway. The one rental building is setback only 16 ft. from the shoreline and contains 556 sq. ft. of hardcover where none is permitted. All remaining hardcover is located beyond � 75 ft. from the shoreline but exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 250. The existing hardcover is 450 in this area. With the planned addition of 308 sq. ft . , less the proposed driveway removal , the resulting hard- cover is reduced to 35o compared to 25o maximum. Nowhere has a statement been made regarding legal hardship for justification of the hardcover variance. Sta�ements made regarding financial considerations cannot apply to performance standard variance considerations. On the other hand, the removal of existing hardcover in trade for the hardcover of the proposed addition does mitigate and improve the total situation. Note , that there are two drainage directions with a ridge line approximately through the main house. The proposed hardcover increase for the house addition adds to the runoff going toward Crystal Bay. The proposed hardcover removal of the driveway would decrease runoff going toward Shadywood Road and eventually Fagerness marsh, but does not improve Crystal Bay drainage . A separate issue is the one of parking spaces and driveway access. Because of traffic safety concerns, our code requires two stalls per dwelling located other than in a front yard (30 ft. in this District) and located so access is from a driveway, not directly off the street. If the upper turnaround is removed, the reguired parking stalls would all end up in the garages and on the drive- ways of the �wo rental cabins along Shadywood. These open stalls are in the front ya�d setback and do require (or allow) backing movements onto the street; therefore, improvements in the hardcover requirements may worsen the traffic and parking considerations. The Planning Commission concluded that the trade of hardcover was sufficient to justify approval of the requested structural addition, provided the lakeshore cabin was removed within five years to decrease dwelling density and to decrease hardcover. After review of the files and discussions by the Planning Commission and Council, I have drawn the following conclusions : � l . The property use unquestionably is non-conforming. The failure of the owner to apply for occupancy ' permits in 1967 , and again in 1974 , makes a prima facie case for describing the use as illegal because there is no documented record of legal existence as of September 14 , 1976 . (Continued)