Laserfiche WebLink
AzLO.trO CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. 7607 <br /> 4kESHO <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 variances for the construction of new decks are <br /> supported by practical difficulties. Much of the existing improvements are located within <br /> the 75-foot lake setback. Therefore, hardcover exists within the lake setback as well. The <br /> new decks will maintain similar setbacks from the lake and wetland. The placement of the <br /> new decks is limited by the existing wetland and lake setback and existing improvements. <br /> The project is in harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance due to the practical <br /> difficulties of the Property's existing conditions and absence of a legal building footprint <br /> area. This criterion is met. <br /> B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the iariances are consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan." The variances supporting the new decks are consistent with the <br /> Comprehensive Plan. The Owner has identified the necessary practical difficulties <br /> inherent in the land, supporting their requests. The proposed increase in hardcover for <br /> the site overall and within the 75-foot setback is necessary as the Property does not have <br /> extraneous hardcover to offset the minimal increase. The 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 /> Property has no legal buildable area. The existing nonconforming decks can be <br /> rebuilt in-kind. The proposed construction of reconfigured decks in a similar <br /> location at a similar setback is a reasonable use of the Property. This criterion is <br /> met. <br /> b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br /> created by the landowner. The existing improvements were not built by the <br /> Owners. The existing conditions of the lot, including the location of the existing <br /> structures and improvements, were not created by the Owners. Additionally, the <br /> lake, wetland, topography, and vegetation further limit the placement of conforming <br /> decks, and that is not a circumstance created by the Owners; and <br /> c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The <br /> proposed variances are supported by practical difficulties and will not alter the <br /> character of the area. The proposed decks are a different shape but smaller in <br /> size. The setbacks from the lake and wetland remain similar to those of the <br /> 3 <br />