Laserfiche WebLink
^ CITY NO. 7 OF393 ORONO <br /> v RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> l <br /> A3. The Property contains 0.44 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 100 feet. <br /> A4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the <br /> Stormwater Quality Overlay District. <br /> A5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br /> a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance <br /> A6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br /> upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br /> conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br /> of property in the surrounding area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> B1."Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br /> and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose <br /> of the Ordinance. The Property includes difficulties in its topography and the orientation of <br /> adjacent homes. The average lakeshore setback variance will not further impact views of <br /> the lake for adjacent properties. <br /> B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan." The proposed variance to construct a deck on the Property is <br /> consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> B3."Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are <br /> practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in <br /> connection with the granting of a variance, means that: <br /> a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable <br /> manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The <br /> request to permit the deck and stair in the proposed location partially within the <br /> average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable considering the orientation <br /> of the neighboring homes with respect to the lakeshore the existing vegetative <br /> screening, the topography, and adjacent properties. The request is reasonable. <br /> b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br /> created by the landowner. The Applicants did not build the home. The linear <br /> nature of the shoreline resulting in neighboring home locations all in a continuous <br /> 2 <br />