My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-09-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
11-09-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2024 1:38:30 PM
Creation date
4/22/2024 1:34:35 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.
/
392
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
B.The location of an oversized accessory structure <br />on the property with doors facing towards detached <br />garage require adequate area for maneuvering <br />movement for heavy equipment and large truck <br />stored in oversized accessory structure. As a <br />result, the structure cannot be moved further <br />south or further away from the side lot line. <br />C.The building envelope of the detached garage is <br />not being expanded upon and the improvements <br />involve merely structural replacement of walls. <br />D.The steep bank at the north side lot line was <br />retained by the masonry wall of the former garage. <br />The pressures of the earthen bank weakened and <br />crushed the north wall of the garage. <br />E.The property owner to the immediate north has <br />submitted a letter to the City stating they have <br />no problem with the boulder wall as installed at <br />the lot line by applicant. <br />F.The 8* high wall functions as a gravity type <br />^^®taining wall and has not been approved by an <br />engineer. The City cannot approve the wall as <br />constructed recognizing it represents a safety <br />risk and homeowner shall have the sole liability <br />in the event of a failure. <br />4.The City Council finds that the cone .tions existing on <br />this property are peculiar to it and do not apply <br />generally to other property in this zoning district; <br />that granting the variance would not adversely affect <br />conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring property; would not <br />merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or <br />difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />property right of the applicant; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code <br />and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />P age 2 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.