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