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 />5 <br /> <br />B9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the <br />land is located.” Setback and shoreland restrictions apply uniformly to properties within the <br />same zoning district. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Property is subject to <br />constraints materially different from other similarly situated residential lots. Absent evidence <br />of unique physical limitations, the circumstances underlying the variance request appear <br />common to properties in the district. Granting relief in this instance would therefore risk <br />establishing a precedent inconsistent with the uniform application of the Code. This criterion <br />is not met. <br /> <br />B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant.” The Property is capable of reasonable residential <br />use in compliance with applicable setback and shoreland standards. The requested <br />variances relate to patio placement, retaining wall location, and accessory improvements, <br />none of which are necessary to preserve the fundamental residential use of the Property. <br />The Applicant has not demonstrated that denial would deprive them of a substantial <br />property right enjoyed by others in the district. Rather, the request seeks to preserve <br />specific constructed improvements in their current nonconforming locations. This criterion <br />is not satisfied. <br /> <br />B11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or <br />morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Shoreland setback <br />and structural setback standards are intended to protect water quality, prevent erosion, <br />preserve drainage patterns, maintain separation between structures, and safeguard <br />neighborhood character. The Applicant has not provided sufficient engineering data, <br />drainage analysis, or slope stability documentation for the City to determine that the <br />retaining walls and related improvements within the shore setback area do not adversely <br />affect erosion control or stormwater management. Without the requested supporting <br />materials, the Council cannot affirmatively conclude that granting the variance would not <br />impair health, safety, or the regulatory intent of the Chapter. Accordingly, this finding <br />cannot be made in support of approval. <br /> <br />B12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br />is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The record reflects that the improvements <br />were installed without required approvals and that no additional materials were submitted <br />to the Planning Commission after they requested further documentation. The Applicant <br />has not demonstrated a practical difficulty arising from the land itself that necessitates the <br />encroachments. Instead, the requested variances would allow retention of improvements <br />constructed in noncompliance with the Code. Relief under these circumstances would <br />function primarily as a convenience to the Applicant rather than as a remedy for <br />demonstrable land-based hardship. This criterion is therefore not satisfied. <br /> <br />66