Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA25-000041 <br />20 October 2025 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />Governing Regulation: <br />Variance (Section 6.12.530) <br />In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance <br />upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, <br />danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning <br />Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in <br />instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do <br />not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to <br />direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in <br />Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit, as <br />a variance, any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's <br />land is located. The board or council may permit, as a variance, the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a <br />two-family dwelling. <br /> <br />According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance <br />is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The property includes difficulties in the topography, <br />existing vegetation, the existing conditions, and the deep lake setbacks of the neighboring homes in <br />relation to the subject. The average lakeshore setback variance requested will improve lake views from <br />the northern neighbor and will not further impact views of the lake for adjacent properties. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to construct a new <br />home in a similar but improved location as the existing home, also resulting in an improved lake <br />setback, is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the <br />official controls; The request to permit the construction of the new home within the average <br />lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable, considering the topography of the lot, the location <br />of the existing home, the setback of the neighboring homes, and the existing mature <br />woods/vegetative screening. The request is reasonable. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of <br />the existing home is nonconforming, the proposed home location will not adversely impact <br />views of the lake for the neighbors, and will maintain consistency with the neighborhood. The <br />proposed home improves the lake setback and the views of the lake for the most impacted <br />neighbor (to the north). The proposal will allow maintenance of the existing vegetation on the <br />slope. The circumstances are unique to the property; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is requested to <br />permit the construction of the home to minimize impacts on the lake. The location will not <br />impact the neighbors’ views of the lake and will fit the character of the neighborhood <br />according to the submitted information. <br /> <br />Additionally, City Code Section 6.12.530 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted <br />as follows: <br />4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not <br />been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br />5. Practical difficulties also include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar <br />energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § <br />216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 6.12. This condition is not applicable. <br />8