Laserfiche WebLink
5. <br />6. <br />The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />A. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. <br />B.The planter is an asset to the lot and should not be removed. <br />Building Official recommends at least a 3 ’ lot line setback due <br />to the location of the neighboring properties garage. <br />conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the vanances would not adversely affect 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demo^trable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />li? and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />y the apphc^ts and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. ^ <br />CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS <br />Drantc VO • findings, the Orono City Council hereby <br />35% is allowed and ‘he 500-1000' selback whereallowed and 36.0/a is proposed. Approval was subject to the following conditions: <br />I. Authorities granted hy this variance run with the property not with the <br />applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a <br />budding permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance <br />Will expire on that date (August 24, 1999). <br />Page 2 of 4