Resolution 6969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�ONp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y� Gti NO. 66 9 9 tR'YES H o�� 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan."The variances resulting in expansions of the existing nonconforming house footprint within the rear yard setback from an 8.2 foot setback to a 0.1 foot setback where a 30 foot setback is required is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the setback variance, this criterion is not met. The proposed change in the nonconforming hardcover from a patio to building footprint is an intensification of the nonconformity and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the hardcover variance, this criterion is not met. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The reasonable use of the Property is established with the principal building. The Applicant suggests that reasonable use includes an expansion of the building footprint. The request to permit expansion of the house footprint within 0.1 feet of the rear property line is not reasonable in that they cannot manage their site drainage or maintain the exterior of the building without trespassing onto adjacent properties. This criterion is not met. b. The plight of the landowneris due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Applicant proposes to make improvements to an existing building to improve the comfort and functionality. The home was not constructed by the current owner. There is nothing unique about the Property which requires the expansion of a nonconforming building to less than a foot from the rear property line. Regarding the setback variance, this criterion is not met. The proposed change in the nonconforming hardcover from a patio to building footprint is an intensification of the nonconformity and is not reasonable in this circumstance. Regarding the hardcover variance, this criterion is not met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The requested variance for a 0.1 foot setback from the rear lot line will result in the Property being out of character with the neighborhood; and result in additional encroachments into the rear setback.The change from grade-level patio hardcover Page 3 of 5