11-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B ATTACHMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION pgscriotion 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 Sec::ons 10.3 Subd. 14c and 14d thereof Hltrdlh‘P^P^scription of Unusual Property Conditions: The Applicant retained Sport Court (the **Contractor**) to construct the sport cc.rt on its property. The Applicant ^lieves that the Contractor is a reputable company with significant experience and expertise in the construction of these facilities including considerable experience w ithin the City of Orono. Accordingly, the Applicant reasonably relied on the Contactor 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 ultimate'..- built the sport court within 10 feet of the neighboring property in apparent v iolation of the zering code. The Applicant was relying on the know ledge, experience and expertise of the contra;:or in the placement of the sport court and was unaware that the construction of the sport cc.rt was in violation of any city ordinance or set back. Prior to construction, the location of the sport court as disclosed to adjoining property ow-ners and the set back requirements were never d.-cussed or objected to. Due to die 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 mo -e the sport court into the backup drain field area. Even if another location could be found (whic'r. does not appear likely), removal and reconstruction of the sport court at this stage would be a -.cry costly and wasteful use of resources. Further, the location of the sport court creates no heal:'-, safetv* or welfare issues w ith respect to the property or the adjoining properties. That is, no ris'N to h tlth, safety or w elfare of the residents are involved nor is there any adverse environmental corditioos, wetland conditions, erosion, hardcover issues or any other zoning laws impacted by the location of the sport court. As an alternative, burming and screening the sport court with trees and other landscape materials appears to be more cost effective and appropriate. 205)49S«I i-