My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-12-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
02-12-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 3:52:18 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 3:47:36 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.
/
513
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
4. <br />D. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Januar>' 16, 1996, <br />and recommended unanimous approval of the renewal variance as proposed <br />based upon the following findings; <br />A. Just over 16,0000 s.f. in area the combined lots contain substantial area <br />for construction of a single family residence without the requirement ot <br />any additional variances to the zoning chapter. <br />B. Municipal sewer is available and assessed to the property. <br />C. The combined lots meet the required lot width of the zoning district. <br />D. <br />E. <br />F. <br />Developed lot sizes in the neighborhood range from .14 acre to .15 acres <br />of dry land, averaging about .55 acres. The combination ot Lots 8 and <br />9 at .37 acre yield a lot size that is not inconsistent with other lots in the <br />neighborhood. <br />There is no other land available for purchase in order to make the lot <br />size conforming. <br />The City has granted previous lot area variances for this property in 1993 <br />and 1994. <br />Tlie City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that <br />granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, 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 />demonstrable hardship or difficulty: is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive 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 <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.