Laserfiche WebLink
1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />5. <br />This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2885. <br />The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum <br />required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.43 acres. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 2003 <br />crd recommended tabling the application by a vote of 7 to 0 to allow the applicants <br />to reduce structural coverage and hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ setback zone. The <br />application was reviewed at the May 19, 2003 meeting and a recommendation to <br />approve portions of the application was adopted by a vote of 4 to 2. <br />4. The Planning Commission made the following flndings of fact: <br />A. A new home can not be constructed on these properties until they are legally <br />combined as one lot; <br />B. The removal of the existing house requires grading and filling within 75’ of <br />the OHWL; <br />C. Replacement of the existing retaining wail is not proposed in the 0-75’ setback <br />zone at this time and would require a new application in the future; <br />D. The proposal does not require a variance for lot coverage by structures; <br />E. The proposed new construction exceeds the 25% maximum permitted <br />hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ setback zone. It is possible to meet this <br />requirement on the legally combined lot without the granting of a variance; <br />F. Applications for hardcover beyond the maximum permitted proposed for new <br />construction have consistently been denied over the past four years; and <br />G. No suitable hardship can be identified to support excessive hardcover in the <br />75* to 250’ setback zone for new construction on the combined lot. <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 w ill 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />City. <br />Page 2 of6 <br />J