Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7670 <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />A6. In considering this application for after-the-fact variances and CUP, the Council has <br />considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect <br />of the proposed application upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, <br />existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public <br />safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />VARIANCE ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance . . . .”The Property is subject to the dimensional and shoreland <br />performance standards of the Orono Municipal Zoning Code, including minimum side <br />yard setbacks and shore setback requirements applicable to retaining walls, patios, <br />landings, and accessory structures. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the <br />variances are in harmony with the code or necessary for the enjoyment of the Property. <br /> <br />B2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan.” The requested variances would permit structural improvements <br />directly up to the side property line and within required shore and yard setbacks, thereby <br />reducing open space and separation between properties in a manner inconsistent with <br />the goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. <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 has not demonstrated that strict enforcement of the ordinance would <br />preclude a reasonable use of the Property. The Property is capable of reasonable <br />residential use in conformity with the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br />created by the landowner. The Applicant constructed or caused to be constructed <br />the patio, landing, retaining walls, and associated improvements without required <br />permits and within required setback areas prior to seeking relief. Any difficulty in <br />complying with the setback requirements is self-created, as the improvements <br />were installed without first obtaining zoning approval or building permits. The <br />property in question shares similar characteristics to surrounding properties and <br />does not possess any unique qualities. <br /> <br />64