Res 7162 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL G, NO. 7 1 6 2 t1'ESHa4� 3. The Property contains 1.13 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 117 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Variance from the roof coverage limits of 70% 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The intent of the 70% rule is to avoid the visual impact of solar panels covering a roof. The proposed location of the panels is on a portion of the roof directly abutting the neighboring property. The visual difference between the proposal (roughly two panels)and the allowances by ordinance are negligible. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The Comprehensive Plan includes "To preserve open space, light, air, and solar access for all citizens while maintaining night sky" as a general goal (CMP Part 2 Community Plan Foundation, page 13). Additionally, Cities are required to include an element of protection and access to for solar energy systems (CMP Part 3A Solar Access Protection,page 14.) 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 placement of the extra solar panels is a reasonable use. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. the property owner did not build the house,and the desire to maximize the use of solar panels did not appear to be the key objective during construction. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." 2