Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> ti <br /> ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��`4kEsYi0 NO. 6 0 5 6 <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br /> June 20, 2011 and recommended approval of variances based on the following <br /> findings: <br /> a. The property contains 25,166 s.f. (0.58 acre) in area and has 115 feet in width. <br /> b. Sanitary sewer is not available. <br /> c. There is no additional land available to bring the lot area into conformity. <br /> d. The Applicants' have agreed to maintain, and improve where necessary, the <br /> existing tree and vegetative screening along their south lot line in order to <br /> screen the addition from the property to the south. <br /> -- <br /> e.�I'he-A p icants reque�will allevia e a-practfe I ifficuZty iiiff&en�f --- <br /> property and not created by the Applicants. <br /> f. The Applicants' request will not alter the essential character of the <br /> neighborhood and will result in minimal negative impact on adjacent <br /> properties. <br /> g. The Applicants' request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the <br /> ordinance. <br /> h. The Applicants have demonstrated that enforcing the setback provisions of the <br /> Zoning Ordinance deprive the Applicants of the reasonable use of their <br /> property. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br /> the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the <br /> health, safety and welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to <br /> it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting <br /> the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br /> hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; is <br /> necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicants; and would be <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />