My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 12:15:12 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 12:10:59 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.
/
401
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
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 2001 and <br />recommended approval on a vote of 7 to 0 for variances based upon the <br />following findings and hardships: <br />A.The existing lot area is 4.0 acres excluding wetlands, 4.8 acres including <br />wetlands. The applicants property is one of many lots with a lot area <br />just under 5 acres along Orchard Park Road. The lots east of Orchard <br />Park Road are developed residentially. Relocating the house on this <br />property will not change the use or character of the propertv. The <br />existing house i.s located only 20’ from the side lot line and 41' from the <br />front property h.-ie. <br />B. <br />C. <br />^ setback variances for the new house location are reejuired. <br />In 1992 the City of Orono issued a permit for construction of a garace. <br />The garage is the accessor}' building that would remain on the property <br />following relocation of the house. The building is functional but has not <br />been completed. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and dn no* apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the v.i.idnces would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fr .nazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />property right of the applicant; rnd would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commis<^ion. reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed v ariance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page .7 \>f 4 <br />A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.