Laserfiche WebLink
' . . <br /> .. . ,� ,, <br /> . 7' O� <br /> O O <br /> � �. <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> ti <br /> ��� �G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> `�xEsHo�`' No. 5 �12 4 <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br /> January 17, 2006 and recommended approval of the setback variances based on the <br /> following findings: <br /> a) Overlapping front and rear yard setbacks: The lot is only 140'in depth on the <br /> west side and 221' in depth on the east side. When the 100' front and rear <br /> yazd setbacks are enforced, they overlap resulting in no buildable area. <br /> b) Location of existing septic mound: The properry is served by a private septic <br /> system. The conforming drainfield site is located in the rear yard directly <br /> behind the existing garage, further restricting the amount of buildable area. <br /> c) No ability to acquire additional properiy to become confornung without <br /> making a neighbor non-conforming: Due to the area of the property to the <br /> west and the amount of wetland existing on the properties to the east and <br /> south, no additional property could be acquired without resulting in other <br /> properties becoming more non-conforming. <br /> d) Approval of variance in 2002 for garage/house addition at a 41' setback <br /> where a setback of twice that of 2002 is now requested: A variance was <br /> approved in 2002 by Resolution#4896 which allowed an even lesser front <br /> yard setback than is currently proposed. The proposed addition and deck are <br /> in a location that will have no negative visual impact in the neighborhood. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br /> the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, <br /> safety and welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this properiy are peculiar to it <br /> and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br /> variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions,light,air nor pose a fire hazard <br /> or other danger to neighboring property;would not merely serve as a convenience to <br /> the applicant and owner, but is necessary to a.11eviate a demonstrable hardship or <br /> difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and <br /> would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br /> Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />