Resolution 7112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sLOATp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 1 1 2 ikESHoo' ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The variances for hardcover in excess of 25% for development of the vacant lot are not in harmony with the City's goals for conforming development and is not in harmony with the Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to limit the amount of hardcover present on a site. The applicant has a vacant lot and has not demonstrated that they are unable to build a home within the hardcover limitations. This criterion is not met. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The hardcover variance requested to permit 27% hardcover where 25% is permitted for development of a vacant lot is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan describes the necessary steps to promote water quality and promotes limits on the amount of hard cover. 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 by the permitted development of a residential home on a substandard lot of record within City Code Section 78- 72. The applicants suggest that reasonable use extends to allowance of hardcover levels exceeding the 25% permitted which is not protected by statute. The request to permit 2% more hardcover than allowed is not reasonable. The applicant has not demonstrated that a residential home cannot be constructed on the lot without the variance. The additional hard cover is not necessary to build the home and is merely convenient. As the builder testified, on behalf of the applicant, there are ways to reduce hardcover and move forward with the proposed project. This criterion is not met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The substandard size is an existing condition and there is no available land with which to make the Property conforming. This is not justification necessary to support the proposed hardcover level in excess of 25%. State Statute and City Code allow for redevelopment of a nonconforming lot of record however hardcover 3