Laserfiche WebLink
‘mmm-' <br />,iu ■ <br />5. <br />6. <br />A.A residence was constructed on this property in 1972 under the same lot <br />area and width standards that currently exist. <br />B. <br />C. <br />In April 1997, the residence was 100% destroyed by fire. <br />Per Orono ordinances, if the residence had been less than 75% destroyed <br />it could have been rebuilt without the need for variances. <br />D.The pre-existing residence did not meet the north side setback <br />requirement. The proposed new residence will be located to meet all <br />setback requirements. <br />E.At 0.60 acres in area, the property is similar in area to many other <br />developed residential lots in the LR-IB district. In a 1983 study, fiilly <br />44% of the existing developed lots in the LR-IB district were 0.60 acre <br />in area or smaller. <br />F.There is no adjacent land available for purchase by the applicant to make <br />the property conforming. <br />G.Denial of the variances would work a hardship on the property owner. <br />The plight of the property owner is not of the property owner ’s making, <br />but is due to circumstances beyond the property owner's control. <br />The City Coun;il has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic fonditicns, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />Page 2 of 5