Laserfiche WebLink
� FILE#11-3522 <br /> 9 August 2011 <br /> , Page 3 of 3 <br /> Practical DifFiculties Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, <br /> and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of . <br /> the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated tra�c conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the <br /> effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the litera/ provisions of the Zoning Code in <br /> instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical di�culties because of <br /> circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend <br /> approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> Staff finds practical difficulty exists which supports the granting of an average lakeshore setback <br /> variance. The applicant's request is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and <br /> does not result in excessive massing on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove the <br /> existing pool which is situated approximately 164 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback <br /> line and approximately 135 feet from the lake. Further, it does not appear the proposed <br /> addition will negatively impact views of the lake enjoyed by the adjacent properties. . <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variance? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> 3 <br />