Laserfiche WebLink
The Orono Planning Commission ic% iewed ihis application on March 18.2002 aaJ <br />recommended ap(m>val of the proposed variances b^d upon the follov^ing findings <br />A. The propert)’ has been developed with a residential use since at least 1950. <br />B. The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks meeting 10* side > ard. 35* from <br />yard and 30* rear yard as required for LR-1B zoning district. <br />C. The detached accessory' building will be the only garage/storage space on the <br />property. <br />D. TTk • at size is consistent with that of other developed properties in the <br />neighborhood. <br />E. The adjacent properties on cither side of applicant’s property are developed <br />with e.xisting single family residences, hence no additional land is available <br />to make the lot larger. <br />F. The residence and garage meet the 15% lot coverage by structures for the <br />property. <br />G. The hardcover variance is necessary ’ because the SOO-IOOO’ zone which <br />contains the driv eway , is a very small part of the rear of the lot. There is no <br />other hardcover that can be removed to compensate. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property arc peculiar to <br />it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, that granting <br />the variances 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 diiTiculty; 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 t ode and <br />Comprehensiv e Plan of the City. <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 />Page 2 of 5