11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ATTACHMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION Description of Request: This request for a variance is with respect to a sport court built on the property which appears to violate the existing setback provisions of the Orono Zoning Code specifically Sections 103 Subd. 14c and 14d thereof Hardshio/Descriotion of Unusual Property Conditions : The Applicant retained Sport Court (the “Contractor”) to construct the sport court on its property. The Applicant ^lie^'es that the Contractor is a reputable company with significant experience and expertise in the construction of these facilities including considerable experience within the City of Orono. Accordingly, the Applicant reasonably relied on the Contractor for advise as to the proper location of the sport court. The Contractor never advised the Applicant of any set back requirements with respect to the sport court. The Contractor ultimately built the sport court within 10 feet of *he neighboring property in apparent violation of the zoning code. The Applicant was rely’ ig on the knowledge, experience and expertise of the contractor in the placement of the s^ort co‘'rt and *vas unaware that the construction of the sport court was in violation of any ci,y ordinance or set back. Prior to construction, the location of the sport court as disclosed to adjoining property owners and the set back requirements were nevei discussed or objected to. Due to the location of the Applicant ’s home, drain field and backup drain field, the Applicant and the Contractor determined that the current location of the sport court was the most appropriate for the property. Attempting compliance with the setback would move the sport court into th backup drain field area. Even if another location could be found (which does not appear likely), removal and reconstruction of the sport court at this stage w'ould be a very costly and wasteful use of resources. Further, the location of the sport court creates no health, safety or welfare issues w ith respect lo the property or the adjoining properties. That is, no risk to health, safety 01 welfare of the residents are involved nor is there any adverse environmental conditions, wetlai.d conditions, erosion, hardcover issues or any other zoning laws impacted by the locau^a of the spert w.ourt. As an alternative, burming and screening the sport court with trees and other landscape materials appears to be more cost effective and appropriate. :0ji495»I iJil f 1 ■v;