Laserfiche WebLink
4. ”he Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on <br />September 21, 1992, and on a vote of 7-0 recommended <br />appro'”'a . ■■>£ the requested variances and conditional use <br />permit: based on the following findings; <br />a. The previously existing garage was located partially on <br />the neighboring property, partially in the right-of-way <br />of Olive Avenue, and partially within applicant's <br />property. Said garage was in disrepair. Pemoval of <br />the garage is an improvement to the neighborhood. <br />b. Applicant has a reasonable need for storage for ya'*'d <br />maintenance equipment and other items which need to oe <br />secured. <br />c. Any other location for a storage shed on the property <br />would require a similar number and magnitude of <br />variances due to the extremely small lot size. <br />d. Placement of the storage shed to the rear of the house <br />would eliminate the only vehicle parking area on the <br />property. <br />e. The proposed removal of existing gravel hardcover <br />results in a slight decrease from 41.6% to 41.1% (500- <br />1,000' zone). <br />f. One or more of the above findings constitute sufficient <br />hardship for granting of the variances and conditional <br />use permit. <br />5. Applicant commenced demolition of the pre-existing garage <br />and construction of the new shed without obtaining the <br />appropriate permits for such work after having been advised <br />of the need for such permits, and commenced such work after <br />making a varitfnce/conditiona 1 use permit application but <br />prior ro variance/conditional use permit approval. <br />6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to <br />other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions. <br />Page 2 of 7