Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 4 8 4 6 <br />3. <br />5. <br />required lot area. The property consists of approximately .23 acres or 10,200 s.f, <br />(9,987 s.f. absent the area below the 929.4 ’). <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 2002 at <br />which time the Planning Commission tabled it for revisions. The applicants revised <br />the application which revisions were reviewed by the Planning Commission on July <br />17,2002, at which time Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised <br />proposal on a vote of 7 to 0. <br />4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />A. <br />B. <br />The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1958. <br />Approximately 75% of the property lies within the 0-75’ setback zone, and a <br />residence cannot be constructed on the property without encroaching <br />substantially into the 0-75 ’ zone. <br />C.There is no additional land to combine with the property. The properties <br />surrounding this lot are also undersized, are residentially developed, and do <br />not meet the required area in the zoning district. <br />D.The residence meets City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage. The <br />residence has been located to provide an acceptable street setback while <br />minimizing driveway hardcover. <br />E. The property can not be redeveloped unless variances are granted. <br />F. The lot is provided with and has been fully assessed for sanitary sewer. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions e.<isting 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 will 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br />or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />If