Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7521 <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br /> <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 /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance . . . .” <br /> <br />The requested setback variances to construct a second story over the existing home that <br />encroaches into the side property line, the lake setback and the average lakeshore <br />setback are not reasonable as the massing and shadowing effect resulting from the <br />increased building mass/height in the substandard setbacks will exacerbate the existing <br />condition. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />Conversely, the variance requested to permit 27.7% hardcover as part of the project <br />which results in a decrease in the nonconforming hardcover is supported by practical <br />difficulty. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />B2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan.” <br /> <br />The setback variances to permit the second story to increase the volume of the home <br />within substandard setbacks will adversely impact the neighboring property to the north <br />and therefore would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is not <br />met. <br /> <br />The hardcover reduction from 29% to 27.7% is consistent with the goals of the CMP and <br />would be a benefit of the project. This criterion is met. <br /> <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 /> <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 />Applicant’s request to permit an upward expansion of the existing nonconforming <br />footprint within the side,75-lake, and average lakeshore setbacks is not <br />reasonable as there is an adequate building envelope available. <br /> <br />189