My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
07-28-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:26:23 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 1:56:02 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.
/
511
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
9 <br />3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br />4. <br />5. <br />July 21,2003 and recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback variance <br />as well as approval of the eave encroachment variance, based on the following <br />findings: <br />a) The proposed porch addition would not encroach fUrther into the average <br />lakeshore setback than the existing home. <br />b) The views of the lake from the neighboring properties would not be affected <br />by the proposed addition. <br />c) encroachment is for an “eyebrow” eave that e.\ists between the 1** <br />and 2 stories. The continued encroachment of this eave does not detract <br />from the property or the neighborhood, does not add the bulk of the structure <br />in the neighborhood, and does not impact light, air or open space in the <br />neighborhood. <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 applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances 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 ser\e as a <br />convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy’ to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br />or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants- <br />and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br />Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />H <br />J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.