My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:01 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 2:54:04 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.
/
470
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
5. The Planning Commission reviewed the Tinal revised plan at a public hearing held <br />on September 15,2003 and on a vote of 6-1 recommended approval of the revised <br />proposal based on the following findings or conditions: <br />a) The proposed partial enclosure of the existing upper level deck to create living <br />space will not create additional hardcover and will not have any impacts on <br />views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners, hence the average <br />setback variance should be granted. <br />b) The proposed partial enclosure of the front entryway, and other primarily <br />cosmetic revisions to the house, will not create additional hardcover and <br />require no variances. <br />c) The property is out of compliance with the hardcover limits established for <br />this property in 1995 via Resolution No. 3578, apparently because the prior <br />owner did not remove portions of driveway that were to be removed. The <br />current property owner as a result of the currently requested improvements <br />should be required to return the property to the 1995 approved hardcover level <br />of 4,910 s.f. in the 75-250' zone. <br />d) The applicants have depicted on a site plan the areas of hardcover they would <br />remove in order to comply with the 1995 limitation. <br />6. 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 />7. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar to it <br />and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variance would 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; 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 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.