Laserfiche WebLink
Hardship Analysis <br />FILE #07-3260 <br />10 January 2007 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in <br />the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that the applicant's request may be reasonable in that there is not a definite <br />demarcation of the side vs. the rear lot line on the property's southern portion, and that <br />the fence maintains a consistent height over the entire property rather than having a <br />variety of heights. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that the applicant's request is reasonable and <br />meets the intent of the fence regulations? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that there is a unique hardship specific to the <br />property to justify the fence height variance? <br />3. If the Planning Commission finds that the applicant's request is reasonable is it <br />more appropriate to consider a Zoning Code Amendment rather than a variance? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by <br />the applicant supports the granting of the variance. If the Commission finds that there is <br />a hardship or reasonable justification to grant the variance then a recommendation to <br />approve would be appropriate ... <br />If the Commission determines that the fence as constructed is not reasonable, and is <br />inappropriate in the location and height then a denial recommendation would be in <br />order .... <br />If the Planning Commission feels the fence is appropriate but not justified under the <br />variance standards perhaps a code revision is an option to consider. If so this application <br />should be denied and sent to Council to determine whether a code change should be <br />pursued.