06-28-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 8. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances area supported by practical difficulties due to the substandard lot conditions and lot of record status. The variances appear to be in harmony with the City’s goals for conforming development and is in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a residence within a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 request to permit construction of the new home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the rear yard and front yard setbacks seems reasonable as the Property is unique based on the lack of frontage (on the lake or on a street) and abuts a public regional trail. The lot has ambiguous orientation with respect to front and rear yard areas. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The configuration, location, and shape of the lot were not created by the owner. The substandard size of the Property and easement access are existing conditions; there is no available land with which to make the Property conforming. State Statute and City Code allow for redevelopment of a nonconforming lot of record however there is no street or lake frontage to clearly define the front yard area. The applicant’s site design appears to be sensitive to the adjacent properties and maintains an existing easement access location.