My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 11:53:52 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 11:51:57 AM
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.
/
224
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
11. <br />12. <br />13. <br />The Council finds that Planning Commission’s findings in 1991 as stated in <br />Resolution No. 2955 regarding the existing driveway, are still valid, and that the <br />existing driveway provides for the necessary parking and backup apron to allow <br />vehicles leaving the property to enter County Road 19 travelling forward. <br />The Council finds that Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 2955 provided clear <br />direction to the property owner and to future City Councils that the City should <br />approve no additional hardcover or structure on this property given the rnagnimde <br />of variances already granted, as documented in that resolution. <br />Granting of required variances would be contrary to the provisions of Municipal <br />Zoning Code Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) with which the applicants must first <br />comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: <br />A.The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is being used for <br />a single family residence and yard area. <br />B.The plight of the applicant is due to circumstances created by the applicant. <br />The applicant constructed the deck without obtaining the required permit. <br />Had the applicant applied for a permit prior to construction of the deck, he <br />would have been advised of the need for a variance application. <br />C.The conditions and codes applying to the structure and land in questions are <br />not peculiar to the property but are applicable to all other properties in the <br />LR-IC Zoning District. <br />D.Granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and <br />enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant <br />has the right to maintain his existing residence on the property. <br />E.The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant, <br />and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. <br />Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient reasonable hardship or practical <br />difficulty to support the variance requests. <br />Page 4 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.