Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner and wishes to continue <br /> using the lot for the use which exists today. <br /> 4. The existing properiy owner was not responsible for the size of the existing lot. By combining <br /> this lot and an adjacent lot,the applicant is actually bringing the lot into greater conformity. <br /> 5. The lot is currently being granted as a single-family home site and would continue to be used as <br /> such. <br /> 6. The replacement of the existing home is being done to increase livability on the property and <br /> is not being sought solely for economic benefit. <br /> 7. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property <br /> or immediately adjoining property. The small size of the subject property and the fact that it <br /> contains an existing single-family dwelling is unique to lands within the RR-lA zoning district. <br /> 8. The facts on this lot do not apply generally to other land or structures within the RR-lA zoning <br /> district. <br /> 9. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br /> property right of the applicant. The existing home on the property has established a single-family <br /> residential use on this legal nonconforming property. State statutes protect this property owner's <br /> rights to maintain an existing legal nonconforming use, so granting of this variance is necessary <br /> to preserve a substandard property right of the applicant. <br /> 10. Staff does not identify anything in the request to suggest a replacement home would impair the <br /> health, safety, comfort or morals of the community. <br /> 11. The requested variance is necessary to permit the applicant to pursue a permit to authorize <br /> replacement of the existing home which is a common property right shared by all other <br /> landowners in the community. <br /> Gozola stated occasionally an application will come forward that involves seldom used portions of the <br /> code,which in turn generates questions on the wording of the ordinance versus the assumed historical <br /> intent of the ordinance. At question currently are the Land Alteration regulations outlined in <br /> Sections 78-966 through78-969. <br /> The historic interpretation of these four provisions,when applied to the subject application, suggests the <br /> City must judge the proposed fill on whether it is truly necessary.The Commission should determine <br /> whether the fill is being proposed simply to accommodate a specific architectural design for the home <br /> rather than to overcome issues making the area unbuildable. If analysis finds that options for construction <br /> currently exist without the fill,the request should generally be denied. <br /> A review of the wording within the ordinance,however, suggests this historic interpretation may be <br /> incorrect or should perhaps be updated for clarity. The alternative reading of these four sections simply <br /> finds that the City has established "fill...to...elevate the existing natural grade" as a conditionally <br /> Page <br /> 11 <br />