My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 11:46:52 AM
Creation date
2/8/2018 11:46:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FILE#17-3963 <br /> 21 Aug 2017 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located.This condition is not applicable,as a residential use is an allowed use in the LR-1B <br /> District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as <br /> a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property.The property contains more land than the <br /> minimum LR-1B acreage requirement.This is not a practical difficulty.This criterion is not <br /> met. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the <br /> land is located.The property contains more land than the minimum LR-1B acreage <br /> requirement.This is not unique in the district nor is it a practical difficulty.This criterion is <br /> not met. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a variance from the minimum lot area <br /> requirement of the LR-1B district to create a new buildable lot is contrary to the goals of <br /> the ordinance and is not necessary to protect the property rights of the owner.The <br /> property can be developed with a single family home.This criterion is not met. <br /> 11. 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. Granting the <br /> requested variance to create a substandard building site in the neighborhood impairs the <br /> comfort of the immediate neighborhood and is contrary to the chapter.This criterion is not <br /> met. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br /> necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The variance serves solely as a convenience <br /> to the applicant.This criterion is not met. <br /> The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.Any <br /> conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact <br /> created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this <br /> chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicant has provided a Practical Difficulties analysis attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for <br /> additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Practical Difficulties <br /> Staff finds that that applicant fails to satisfy all of the practical difficulties necessary to grant a <br /> variance,which is necessary to approve a subdivision to create a new,substandard buildable lot in <br /> the LR-1B zone. As detailed above,the City has historically not created substandard lots without a <br /> rezoning or a PRD process. <br /> Public Comments <br /> Staff spoke with one neighbor,who asked not to be identified,who was not in support of the <br /> variance and/or subdivision of the property. This neighbor further stated their concern with the fact <br /> that the City did not have regulations in place which prevent/prohibit the type of construction which <br /> was done on 940 North Arm Drive. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.