My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-27-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
11-27-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 3:03:38 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 3:01:50 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.
/
201
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
J <br />3. <br />4. <br />The City Council of Orono reviewed this application on November 13, 1995, <br />npd recommended conceptual approval of the proposed v ariances based upon the <br />following findings: <br />A. The property at .63 acres would be allowed a total ot 2,000 s.t. <br />accessory structure area. The property contains a total of 1,024 s.t. ot <br />accessory' structures (968 s.f. of garage and 56 s.f. ot shed in rear yard). <br />B. <br />C. <br />D, <br />E. <br />F. <br />The property is narrow with steep topography restricting vehicular access <br />to the rear yard. <br />The only gentle sloped area on the property is to the rear yard where the <br />existing septic system is located. This area should be retained for future <br />septic needs. <br />The flatter sloped area in the west front yard was filled and not suitable <br />for on-site septic development. <br />Sloping topography in the location of the proposed addition will allow <br />applicant to minimize visual impact of structure. <br />The applicant received approval of a side setback variance at 5’ for the <br />existing 22 ’x23' garage in 1978. The proposed structure will be located <br />6.4 ’ from the side lot line. <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 />grantine the variance would not adversely alTect 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 />Page 2 of 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.