Laserfiche WebLink
OO CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> tie No. 7521 <br /> t.,14tEStiolL4 <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 . . . ." <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 /> 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 /> B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan." <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 3 <br />