09-26-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. The Orono Plaiming C 1994, and tccommendcd following Hndings: Sion feviewcd this application on SqNcmber 19, oval of the proposed variances has^ upon the B A deck and railing have existed tn this location for more dian four decades. The deck and railing k> he replaced are locMd 7.3* from the side lot line where a 10’ side setback is required, and 65* from die shoreline where a 75* setback is normally required, and located lakeward of the average lakeshoie setback as defined by neighboring lesidence structures. RepUcemenl of the deck does not constitute a new encroachment into the side or lakeshoie setbacks nor does k create a new view encroachment for neighboring properties. The proposed replacement nstilute new or A • ^ •il hardcover on the property, although the existing hardcover is in excess of the zoning district limits in each zone. The City Council has considered this applkatkm including the findings and recommendations the Plannii^ Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not jq>ply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicam, but is necessary to alleviate a deroonstraMe hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5