My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-01-2009 Planning Commission Work Session
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission Work Session
>
2009
>
04-01-2009 Planning Commission Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2021 1:34:57 PM
Creation date
12/15/2021 1:34:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
To: Planning Commission <br /> From: Evelyn Turner <br /> Date: April 1, 2009 <br /> Subject: Revising the Hardship Documentation Form <br /> An attempt to improve the Hardship Documentation Form has turned into a proposal to revise <br /> the 11-123, the"Issuances" section. The Planning Commission is asked to review the state <br /> statute and this section and discuss a revision. <br /> Background <br /> The Hardship Documentation Form (attached) should be the basis for approving a variance. But <br /> most applicants do an abysmal job of completing the form. This often places Staff in the <br /> position of providing the reasons for granting a variance. Applicants who don't receive positive <br /> recommendations sometimes feel they have not received fair treatment. <br /> I started out thinking that the situation could be improved by revising the form. #6 and#7 could <br /> be shifted to the end and changed to a yes-no question. The others could be rephrased as <br /> questions. But this still left 10 questions. Some were repetitious. <br /> Looking at 78-123 closely I noted that in the opening paragraph was for the most part a <br /> duplication of the list of"parameters". There was also duplication between this list and the last <br /> paragraph. The first seven parameters were almost verbatim restatements of the state statute. I <br /> guessed they had simply been inserted into an older code. I concluded the list in the code could <br /> and should be simplified. <br /> I noticed that 78-122 contains references to the board of adjustments and appeals and <br /> comprehensive municipal plan. It also contains a provision allowing the City Council to bypass <br /> the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote. I'm not sure if the statute allows that. <br /> State Statute <br /> The state statute isn't particularly well organized but four parameters can be extracted: <br /> • There must be a hardship. <br /> • The hardship must not be created by the current property owner. <br /> • The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> • The variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. <br /> The statute offers further definition of hardship. It allows conditions to be attached to variances <br /> and forbids "use"variances except for temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family <br /> dwelling. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.