My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:59:13 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:41:37 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
392
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
7. <br />8. <br />g) <br />The Planning Commission recommends that an attached garage meeting the <br />30' side setback but as near as 35' to the front lot line is appropriate for the <br />site. <br />Because the property is in the MUSA, because this is considered as new <br />construction, and because there is no alternate drainfield site available on the <br />property for future use, he Planning Commission recommends that the existing <br />conforming septic system not be re-used because 20 years of its useful life has <br />already been expended and its re-use results in a new home with a 20-year-old <br />septic system, which is inappropriate for new construction. <br />Due to the proximity of the wetland to the proposed deck on the northeast <br />comer of the residence, a wetland delineation should be required of the <br />applicant prior to approvl of construction of the deck to ensure the required <br />setback is met. <br />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 />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br />and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variances 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 demonstrable hardship <br />or 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 3 of 6 <br />aI <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.