Laserfiche WebLink
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 18, 1996, <br />and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following <br />unique findings and hardships: <br />A. The deck is deteriorating and cannot be used by applicants in its present <br />condition. <br />B. <br />C. <br />The deck will be replaced within the same footprint as the existing deck. <br />In 1976 the applicants received variance approval tor the existing deck <br />that was to be located 2' closer to the lake than the deck that was <br />constructed. <br />D.Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area will remain at 4.04%. <br />E.A landscape area underlain with plastic located within the County right- <br />of-way shall be removed. This will result in the removal of <br />approximately 660 s.f. of hardcover. <br />F.In a 1988 variance application, applicants removed 146 s.f. of cement <br />patio within the 0-75’ setback zone. <br />G.During heavy' rainfalls the property receives major runoff from the <br />developed properties to the north. <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 />wanting the variance would not adversely afreet 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary' to preserve a substantia <br />property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />J